The Landscape of Law Evaluation: Examining "Worst to Best" Rankings

1. Introduction: The Quest for Evaluating Laws

The endeavor to evaluate and rank laws, policies, and legislative outcomes from "worst to best" is a complex but prevalent practice. Numerous organizations, including advocacy groups, think tanks, academic institutions, and media outlets, engage in various forms of such assessments. These evaluations serve multiple purposes, from informing the public and influencing policy debates to holding legislators accountable and promoting specific ideological or policy agendas. However, there is no single, universally accepted methodology or definition of what constitutes a "worst" or "best" law. Instead, the landscape is characterized by a diversity of approaches, criteria, and underlying philosophies.

The inherent subjectivity in defining "good" or "bad" law means that rankings often reflect the specific values and priorities of the evaluating organization. For instance, a law viewed favorably by an entity promoting fiscal conservatism due to its tax-cutting provisions might be assessed negatively by an organization focused on social welfare if those cuts impact public services. This ideological diversity is a fundamental characteristic of the law-ranking ecosystem. Understanding this context is crucial for interpreting the various indices, scorecards, and reports that offer such evaluations. This report will explore the different types of entities involved in ranking laws, the methodologies they employ, and the ways in which "worst to best" is conceptualized and communicated.

2. Direct Rankings of Laws, Policies, and Jurisdictional Performance

Several organizations undertake direct assessments of laws, policies, or the overall performance of jurisdictions (states or countries) based on their legal frameworks and outcomes. These rankings often focus on specific domains such as access to justice, government openness, fiscal responsibility, or public safety.

One prominent example is the Justice Index by the National Council on Access to Justice (NCAJ). This initiative evaluates how well US states have codified "selected best policies" to ensure access to justice for all individuals.1 The Justice Index comprises six component indexes: Attorney Access, Self-Representation Access, Language Access, Disability Access, Fines and Fees, and Consumer Debt Litigation. States are scored on a scale of 0 to 100 and ranked based on these scores, with the aim of supporting policy reform and increasing public understanding of fairness in the legal system.1 The methodology involves identifying specific laws and practices that facilitate access to justice.1

Internationally, the World Justice Project (WJP) produces the WJP Open Government Index, which ranks countries based on their performance across four dimensions of government openness: publicized laws and government data, right to information, civic participation, and complaint mechanisms.2 Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating the greatest openness, and are derived from general population and expert surveys.2 This index provides a global perspective on how transparent and accessible governments are, implicitly ranking legal and administrative systems based on these criteria.

From a fiscal policy perspective, the Cato Institute publishes a "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors." This report grades governors based on their tax and spending records, with those who have restrained taxes and spending receiving higher grades (A) and those who have substantially increased them receiving lower grades (F).3 This is a clear example of ranking based on adherence to a specific economic philosophy – limited government. The report explicitly details "best" laws (tax cuts, spending restraint) and "worst" laws (tax increases, new spending programs) enacted under various governors.3 For instance, Iowa's Governor Kim Reynolds received an "A" for laws like HF 2317 (2022) which phased in significant tax cuts, while Minnesota's Governor Tim Walz received an "F" for measures such as HF 1938 (2023) which raised taxes on businesses and imposed new taxes on investment income.3

Organizations also rank states based on the quality of their labor laws and working conditions. Oxfam America's Best States to Work Index evaluates states based on wage policies, worker protection policies, and the right to organize.4 For example, in its 2022 index, Oregon and California ranked highest, reflecting strong pro-worker legal frameworks, while states like North Carolina and Mississippi ranked lowest.5 The methodology considers factors such as the ratio of state minimum wage to the cost of living, protections for pregnant and breastfeeding workers, and the presence of "right-to-work" laws.5

Furthermore, some rankings focus on outcomes that are heavily influenced by the legal and policy environment. For instance, the Simmrin Law Group published a ranking of "The Safest and Most Dangerous States in America 2024," where New Jersey was identified as the safest state and New Mexico as the most dangerous.6 Such outcome-based rankings implicitly judge the effectiveness of a state's legal system, including criminal laws and enforcement policies, in ensuring public safety. The evaluation is not directly of the laws themselves but of their aggregate impact on a desired societal condition. This highlights a critical distinction in how "laws" are evaluated: some assessments focus on the procedural aspects or the content of the laws themselves (e.g., NCAJ's focus on adopted policies), while others prioritize the tangible outcomes believed to be shaped by those laws (e.g., safety rankings).

The very definition of "law" in these ranking systems varies considerably. For the NCAJ, it's about "best policies" and established legal practices.1 For the Cato Institute, it encompasses the "tax and spending records" and specific fiscal legislation enacted by governors.3 Oxfam examines a broader suite of "wage policies, worker protection, and right to organize".4 The WJP looks at "dimensions of government openness" reflective of the legal and administrative environment.2 This variability means that when an organization "ranks laws," it could be evaluating specific statutes, broader policy frameworks, or even the general legal atmosphere created by governmental actions. Consequently, users of such rankings must clearly understand the specific unit of analysis to correctly interpret the findings. A law deemed "bad" in one context (e.g., a tax increase from Cato's perspective) might be considered part of a "good" policy framework by another organization focusing on, for example, the adequacy of public service funding (a perspective not explicitly covered by Cato but a common counterpoint in policy debates).

Moreover, the "best" and "worst" designations are frequently tied to adherence to a predefined ideal model or the achievement of desired outcomes. NCAJ's "best policies" are pre-selected benchmarks for access to justice.1 The Cato Institute's "A" grade governors are those who most effectively "cut taxes and spending," aligning with a limited-government ideal.3 Similarly, Oxfam's top-ranked states are those with robust pro-worker policies 4, and Simmrin Law Group's "safest states" are those that achieve the desired outcome of low crime rates.6 This demonstrates that these rankings are often normative, promoting a particular vision of good governance or a desirable societal state. While valuable for advocacy and policy debate, this inherent normativity requires users seeking objective information to critically evaluate the underlying assumptions and values of the ranking system.

The following table provides an overview of some key initiatives that directly rank laws or policies:

Table 1: Overview of Key Law and Policy Ranking Initiatives

Organization	Report/Index Name	Primary Focus/Laws Ranked	Geographic Scope	Nature of "Worst/Best" Evaluation
National Council on Access to Justice (NCAJ)	Justice Index	Selected "best policies" for ensuring access to justice across various categories (attorney access, language access, etc.)	US States	Score (0-100) and rank based on adoption of best policies 1
World Justice Project (WJP)	WJP Open Government Index	Dimensions of government openness (publicized laws, right to information, civic participation, complaint mechanisms)	Global (Countries)	Score (0-1) based on survey data; higher score is better 2
Cato Institute	Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors	Governors' tax and spending records; specific fiscal laws and their impact	US States	Grade (A-F); "A" for cutting taxes/spending, "F" for increasing 3
Oxfam America	Best States to Work Index	Wage policies, worker protection policies, right to organize	US States	Overall score and rank; higher score indicates better worker policies 4
Simmrin Law Group	The Safest and Most Dangerous States in America	Crime statistics and other safety-related data	US States	Safety score; ranks states from safest to most dangerous 6
Mercatus Center	Freedom in the 50 States	Fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and personal freedom	US States	Overall freedom ranking; also ranks personal freedom separately 7

3. Methodological Approaches to Defining "Worst to Best"

Organizations employ a variety of methodological approaches to determine their rankings and to define what constitutes "worst" or "best" in the realm of laws and policies. These methodologies range from quantitative scoring systems based on specific indicators to qualitative expert critiques.

3.1 Indicator-Based Scoring and Benchmarking
A common approach involves developing a set of indicators or identifying "best practices" and then scoring jurisdictions based on their adoption of, or performance against, these benchmarks.

• The NCAJ Justice Index exemplifies this by identifying "selected best policies" for access to justice and scoring states from 0 to 100 on their adoption.1 Their methodology explicitly outlines the laws and practices that contribute to a state's score.
• The WJP Open Government Index ranks countries based on four dimensions of openness, with scores from 0 to 1 derived from survey data that reflect adherence to these principles.2 The use of both general population and expert surveys aims to capture broad perceptions and specialized knowledge.
• The Oxfam Best States to Work Index scores states by evaluating multiple policy indicators across three main dimensions: wage policies, worker protection, and the right to organize.4 Specific indicators include the state minimum wage relative to the local cost of living, the existence of paid sick and family leave mandates, and whether the state has "right-to-work" laws, which are viewed negatively in this index.5

3.2 Quantitative Analysis of Policy and Outcome Data
Some rankings rely heavily on the statistical analysis of economic, fiscal, or social data to infer the quality or impact of policies and laws.

• The Cato Institute's Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors uses objective data on tax rates, government revenue, and spending levels. Governors are graded (A through F) based on quantitative changes in these fiscal variables, with an "A" signifying significant tax and spending cuts.3 The methodology is explicitly data-driven, focusing on the fiscal actions of governors and their impact on short-term budgets.
• The Simmrin Law Group's Safest/Most Dangerous States ranking is based on crime statistics and other safety-related data. States are assigned a safety score, with weights applied to different types of crime to determine the final ranking.6

3.3 Survey-Based Assessments
In some cases, the perceptions of experts or the general public, gathered through systematic surveys, form the primary basis for rankings.

• The WJP Open Government Index is a key example, with its scores explicitly based on answers drawn from general population polls and qualified respondents' questionnaires.2 This approach directly measures experiences and perceptions of government openness.

3.4 Qualitative Expert Analysis and Critique
Beyond numerical rankings, scholars, commentators, and think tanks often provide qualitative assessments. These evaluations identify "best" or "worst" laws based on in-depth analysis, legal interpretation, or ideological critique, rather than a formal scoring system.

• Legal scholar Elie Mystal's book "Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America" argues that specific U.S. laws, particularly those concerning immigration, abortion, and voting rights, are fundamentally flawed and detrimental to the country, based on legal scholarship and an analysis of their societal impact.8
• The Heritage Foundation periodically publishes reports and commentaries identifying "Worst Regulations" or discussing issues like "Overcriminalization".9 For example, their "10 Worst Regulations of 2015" identified rules related to tombstone sales, salt content in restaurant food, and internet regulation as particularly problematic, based on principles of free markets and limited government.10 Their work on overcriminalization highlights obscure or seemingly absurd federal laws, such as regulations on the sale of Swiss cheese or tufted mattresses.9
• The Independent Women's Forum (IWF), in its "Year In Review: Best And Worst Of 2024 State Healthcare Laws," uses qualitative judgment to categorize state policy changes, labeling some states as "Winners" for positive reforms and others as "Biggest Loser" for enacting "counterproductive measures".11

3.5 How Methodologies Translate to "Worst to Best"
The translation of these diverse methodologies into a "worst to best" spectrum varies. For indicator-based and quantitative systems, this is typically represented by a numerical scale (e.g., low scores indicating "worst" and high scores "best," or letter grades from F to A). In survey-based systems, aggregate scores reflect overall positive or negative perceptions, which then translate into rankings. For qualitative analyses, the "worst to best" judgment is conveyed through argumentation, explicit labeling (e.g., "bad law," "worst regulation"), and the detailed justification provided for why a law is deemed problematic or beneficial from the analyst's perspective.
The transparency and rigor of these methodologies can vary significantly, which directly impacts the perceived reliability and utility of the rankings. Organizations like NCAJ 1, WJP 2, the Cato Institute 3, and Oxfam 5 often provide detailed explanations of their methods, data sources, and scoring criteria, allowing for external scrutiny. In contrast, less formal rankings, such as lists of "weirdest laws" 12 or some journalistic opinion pieces, may have less transparent or systematic methodologies. The rigor of data collection also differs; for example, the WJP conducts extensive, multi-country surveys 2, while other analyses might rely on more selective or anecdotal evidence. Users of these rankings must therefore critically evaluate the soundness and transparency of the underlying methodology. A "ranking" based on opaque criteria or cherry-picked examples offers less reliability for serious policy analysis than one grounded in a clear, consistently applied, and well-documented framework. The funding and potential biases of the rating organization, as highlighted in discussions about think tank funding transparency 13, also become relevant considerations when assessing methodological integrity.

Furthermore, reducing complex laws or entire policy environments to a single score or a "best/worst" label can oversimplify reality and obscure important nuances and trade-offs. A law deemed "worst" according to one set of criteria (e.g., a tax increase by the Cato Institute 3) might be viewed positively when assessed against different measures (e.g., its role in funding essential public services, a common counter-argument in policy debates). Similarly, a policy lauded as "best" by one group (e.g., strong worker protections favored by Oxfam 4) might be criticized by another for potentially increasing business costs or hindering job creation. These rankings inherently prioritize specific values, and policy decisions almost always involve balancing competing objectives. Therefore, users should look beyond the headline ranking to understand the specific criteria employed and the potential unacknowledged trade-offs. The "best" or "worst" label is ultimately a conclusion derived from a particular value system, not an objective, universal truth about the law's overall societal impact.

4. Legislative Scorecards: An Indirect Lens on Law Quality

Legislative scorecards offer an indirect yet influential means of categorizing laws and legislative efforts as "good" or "bad." Rather than ranking enacted laws comprehensively, these tools assess the voting records of legislators based on their alignment with an organization's stance on selected pieces of legislation.

4.1 The Mechanics and Purpose of Legislative Scorecards
Advocacy groups, think tanks, and various interest groups routinely produce legislative scorecards. They select key legislative votes during a session and assign scores to lawmakers, indicating how often their votes matched the organization's preferred position.14 The primary purposes are to educate voters about their representatives' actions, hold legislators accountable for their voting records, and advocate for specific policy outcomes.14 The process involves identifying bills deemed significant to the organization's mission, tracking legislators' votes on these bills through committee and floor actions, and then compiling these votes into a ranked or graded assessment.15 The selection of bills for inclusion in a scorecard is a critical step and often focuses on legislation that is particularly controversial or central to the group's agenda.15
4.2 Examples of Diverse Legislative Scorecards
The landscape of legislative scorecards is diverse, reflecting a wide array of ideological perspectives and issue-specific concerns:

• Ideologically-Driven Scorecards:
  • The American Conservative Union (ACU) has been rating politicians on their conservatism since 1971. Their scores, often presented as percentages, designate those with ratings above 80% as "ACU Conservatives".16 Their methodology is rooted in a conservative philosophy where sovereignty resides in the person, and they rate votes already cast.16 VoteSmart.org provides access to some ACU ratings, showing, for example, perfect 100% scores for some Republican legislators and 0% for many Democrats on selected votes.18
  • ProgressivePunch offers a counterpoint, calculating scores for members of Congress based on their "Lifetime Crucial Votes" compared against the expected progressive voting record for their district or state's political leaning.19 They cover a broad range of issues from a progressive viewpoint.
  • Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is noted as a long-standing organization that has utilized a liberal rubric for rating legislators since 1947.14
• Issue-Specific Scorecards:
  • The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) publishes an annual National Environmental Scorecard, rating members of Congress on their votes on key environmental, climate, and energy issues.14 Their website provides detailed scores for individual legislators, state averages, and identifies key votes, such as those on EPA regulations or public lands conservation.20
  • The AFL-CIO produces a legislative scorecard focusing on issues critical to working families, including the freedom to join a union, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and improving workplace safety.14
  • Numerous other organizations, such as the National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood, and the Human Rights Campaign, also publish scorecards reflecting their specific advocacy areas.14
  • At the state level, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) in California provides legislative report cards that grade legislators based on their votes on tax and fiscal issues, with an "A" grade indicating strong alignment with taxpayer protection principles.15
  • ACLU California Action publishes legislative scorecards and highlights key bills concerning racial and economic justice, criminal justice reform, and democratic engagement.15
  • The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) is known for its legislative scorecards, which typically focus on bills affecting the business climate, often designating certain bills as "job killers".15
  • The John Birch Society, through TheFreedomIndex.org, ranks California legislators based on their perceived fidelity to U.S. constitutional and limited-government principles, selecting specific bills for evaluation.29

4.3 How Scorecards Imply "Worst to Best" for Laws
Legislative scorecards imply a "worst to best" judgment about laws in several ways:

• A vote that aligns with the scoring organization's stance is considered a "good" vote. This implies that the underlying bill (if the organization supported it) or the opposition to a bill (if the organization opposed it) is favorable from their perspective.
• Consistently high scores for a legislator suggest that their overall voting record and, by extension, their legislative agenda, aligns with what the organization deems "good" lawmaking. Conversely, low scores indicate misalignment.
• The lists of "key votes" or specially designated bills (e.g., CalChamber's "job killer" list, though not explicitly detailed in the provided materials, is a well-known example of such a tactic) directly label certain legislative proposals as beneficial or detrimental according to the organization's criteria.

The primary function of legislative scorecards is advocacy and accountability, rather than objective, comprehensive legal analysis. The stated purpose of many scorecards is to educate voters 14, hold lawmakers accountable for their actions 16, and promote particular policy positions. This is evident in the ACU's aim to provide a conservative interpretation of an official's governance 16 or the LCV's goal to show whether members of Congress are voting to protect people and the planet.20 The selection of bills for inclusion is often strategic, focusing on those that clearly delineate ideological or policy differences, or on the "most controversial ones" 15, to energize supporters and draw distinctions for voters. Therefore, while these scorecards are valuable for understanding an organization's policy priorities and a legislator's alignment with those priorities, they are inherently framed by the group's specific agenda. They reflect a judgment on legislative priorities and actions more than a deep, neutral legal analysis of enacted statutes in isolation.

The proliferation of these scorecards from a multitude of ideologically diverse organizations—ranging from the conservative ACU 16 and taxpayer-focused HJTA 15 to the progressive ProgressivePunch 19, environmental LCV 20, labor-oriented AFL-CIO 22, business-centric CalChamber 15, and civil liberties-focused ACLU 15—creates a "marketplace of legal values." In this marketplace, different ideals and frameworks for what constitutes "good" or "bad" legislative outcomes compete for legitimacy and public influence. Each organization promotes its own definition of desirable policy, leading to a dynamic where there is no single, universally agreed-upon standard for evaluating laws or legislative performance. This competitive landscape requires users to be discerning consumers of information, recognizing that each scorecard represents one viewpoint in a larger, ongoing debate about legal and societal values. It also underscores the idea that the act of "ranking laws," even indirectly through legislator scores, is an inherently political act, deeply intertwined with advocacy and the pursuit of specific policy goals.

The following table summarizes a selection of legislative scorecards and their characteristics:

Table 2: Selected Legislative Scorecards and Their Focus

Organization	Scorecard Name (or general description)	General Focus/Ideology	How "Good/Bad" Laws are Implied	Geographic Scope
American Conservative Union (ACU)	ACU Ratings / CPAC Conservative Ratings	Conservatism, limited government	Legislator scores (0-100%); "ACU Conservative" for >80% 16	Federal, US States
ProgressivePunch	ProgressivePunch Scores	Progressivism	Legislator scores based on "Crucial Votes" vs. district lean 19	Federal (US Congress)
League of Conservation Voters (LCV)	National Environmental Scorecard	Environmental protection, climate action	Legislator scores (0-100%) based on key environmental votes 20	Federal (US Congress)
AFL-CIO	Legislative Scorecard	Labor rights, working family issues	Legislator lifetime scores based on votes on worker-centric bills 22	Federal (US Congress)
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA)	Legislative Report Card	Taxpayer rights, fiscal conservatism	Legislator grades (e.g., "A") based on votes on tax/fiscal bills 23	California
ACLU California Action	Legislative Scorecard	Civil liberties, racial/economic justice, criminal justice	Highlights sponsored/opposed bills; scorecard for legislators 27	California
California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber)	Legislative Scorecard / "Job Killer" list (implied)	Business interests, economic climate	Identifies supportive/opposed bills; historically "Job Killer" designations 15	California
The John Birch Society (TheFreedomIndex.org)	Legislative Scorecard	U.S. Constitutionalism, limited government	Legislator scores based on selected votes on constitutional/limited gov't principles 29	California (example)

5. Thematic "Best and Worst" Law Compilations

Beyond systematic rankings and scorecards, various sources offer more qualitative, often narrative, compilations or discussions of laws deemed "best," "worst," "weird," or particularly impactful. These thematic collections contribute to the public discourse on law quality, often highlighting specific concerns or achievements.

5.1 Scholarly and Expert Critiques
Individual experts and scholars frequently publish analyses that identify problematic laws based on deep legal or societal critiques.

• Elie Mystal's "Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America" is a prominent example. In this work, Mystal, a legal scholar, argues that certain U.S. laws, particularly those related to immigration, abortion, voting rights, and religious freedom, are not only misaligned with the will of most Americans but are actively causing harm and "ruining America".8 The nature of "worst" here is defined by severe negative societal impact and a fundamental disconnect from democratic principles, with some laws deemed so detrimental that Mystal suggests they should be abolished.8 This represents a form of expert-driven identification of "worst" laws grounded in substantive legal and ethical critique.

5.2 Think Tank Reports on Problematic Legislation/Regulation
Think tanks often produce reports and commentaries that focus on specific categories of laws or regulations they deem harmful, reflecting their institutional perspectives.

• The Heritage Foundation is known for its critiques of government overreach. They have published commentaries such as the "10 Worst Regulations" (e.g., for 2015, which included regulations on salt in food, transfats, and internet service providers) and reports on "Overcriminalization".9 These identify regulations or types of laws as overly burdensome, economically damaging, or an infringement on individual freedom from a conservative/libertarian viewpoint.10 Their work on overcriminalization points to the proliferation of federal criminal laws, some of which are described as "ridiculous," such as making it a federal crime to sell Swiss cheese without holes under specific regulatory definitions.9 These analyses illustrate how think tanks contribute to the discourse on "bad" laws through targeted critiques and thematic reports focused on principles of limited government and economic liberty.
• The Guttmacher Institute, while primarily a research organization focusing on sexual and reproductive health and rights, often frames its findings in terms that highlight the negative impact of certain laws. For instance, reports may describe legislative periods with numerous new abortion restrictions as the "worst legislative year ever" for abortion rights.30 In this context, "worst" is defined by the detrimental impact on access to specific rights or services, such as reproductive healthcare. The Institute details various types of abortion bans (near-total, six-week, "trigger" bans) as highly consequential and restrictive, increasing barriers to care.30 This demonstrates how data-driven research can lead to strong qualitative judgments about the negative impact and undesirability of certain laws.

5.3 Journalistic and Popular Compilations
Media outlets and popular legal blogs sometimes compile lists of laws that are noteworthy for reasons other than their immediate policy impact, or they summarize public sentiment on new legislation.

• "Weirdest Laws" Lists, such as the one by AER Law Group for California, gather archaic, seemingly absurd, or anachronistic laws that remain on the books.12 Examples include prohibitions like women driving in housecoats, flying kites more than ten feet off the ground in Walnut, CA, or cursing on a mini-golf course in Long Beach.12 The "worst" or "bad" quality here is not typically about serious policy harm but rather about being nonsensical, unenforceable, outdated, or simply bizarre. These lists highlight a different dimension of "bad" laws – those that are irrelevant or peculiar rather than actively detrimental in a contemporary policy sense.
• State-Level "Best/Worst" Policy Summaries, particularly concerning ballot propositions, are common. News outlets and organizations analyze and report on the outcomes of these direct democracy measures, often framing them implicitly or explicitly based on their perceived impact or alignment with certain values.31 For example, Ballotpedia provides summaries of California propositions, including their passage or rejection, campaign contributions for and against, political party positions, and editorial board endorsements from major newspapers.32 This shows how various stakeholders evaluate proposed laws as "support" or "oppose," thereby contributing to a public understanding of their perceived benefits or drawbacks.

These qualitative designations of "worst laws" often center on perceived harm, injustice, or irrationality. Mystal's "Bad Law" directly addresses laws he sees as "ruining America".8 The Heritage Foundation targets regulations that "infringe on every aspect of daily life" or are economically burdensome.10 "Weird laws" are highlighted for their sheer absurdity.12 The Guttmacher Institute discusses laws based on their detrimental impact on fundamental rights.30 This focus on laws that are seen as actively causing problems, violating core principles, or being patently illogical plays a significant role in public discourse and advocacy by drawing attention to legislation with particularly egregious perceived flaws, even if these laws are not part of a regular, systematic ranking.

Interestingly, the category of "best laws" appears less prominently in these thematic compilations than "worst laws." Much of the discourse in these qualitative assessments is critical, focusing on identifying and analyzing problems, as seen in Mystal's "Bad Law," Heritage's "Worst Regulations," and Guttmacher's reports on restrictive legislative trends.8 "Best laws" sometimes emerge implicitly as the inverse of these criticisms (e.g., the repeal of a "bad law" would be considered a positive development) or are highlighted in more specialized, technical contexts, such as NCAJ's identification of "best policies" for access to justice.1 An exception is the Brookings Institution's analysis of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which frames this specific piece of legislation in a positive light, detailing its progress and comprehensive nature.33 This suggests that public and advocacy discourse might be inherently more focused on identifying and remedying flaws within the legal system rather than systematically celebrating legislative successes, unless specific advocacy goals are tied to promoting particular models or achievements. "Best" is often implied by achieving high scores in index rankings rather than being the subject of standalone thematic praise.

6. Critical Considerations and Navigating the Landscape of Law Rankings

Navigating the diverse landscape of law rankings requires a critical approach. Users of these evaluations—be they researchers, policymakers, journalists, or members of the public—must consider several factors to derive meaningful understanding.

6.1 Understanding Ideological Underpinnings and Potential Biases
Most, if not all, systems that rank laws or legislators are produced by organizations with specific missions, values, or ideological perspectives. The Cato Institute's libertarian viewpoint heavily influences its Fiscal Policy Report Card, prioritizing tax cuts and spending restraint.3 The American Conservative Union's ratings are explicitly designed to measure conservatism.16 Conversely, the League of Conservation Voters' scorecard is driven by environmental protection goals 20, and Oxfam America's index champions worker justice and rights.4 It is essential to scrutinize the funding sources and affiliations of think tanks and advocacy groups, as these can offer insights into potential biases or agendas.13 Users should always consider the source's perspective when interpreting "worst to best" designations, recognizing that these labels are often value-laden.
6.2 Evaluating Methodological Rigor and Transparency
The credibility of any ranking hinges on the rigor and transparency of its methodology. As discussed previously, it is crucial to look for clear, consistently applied methods and transparent criteria. Rankings that provide detailed explanations of their data sources, indicators, and scoring processes (e.g., NCAJ Justice Index 1, WJP Open Government Index 2) are generally more reliable than those with opaque methodologies or those that appear to cherry-pick data or examples. There is a significant difference in utility between comprehensive, systematically constructed indices and more targeted, anecdotal lists, such as compilations of "weird laws".12
6.3 The Nuance Beyond the Numbers: Limitations of Rankings
Quantitative scores and simple rankings can oversimplify complex legal and social issues. They may obscure important nuances, policy trade-offs, and unintended consequences of laws. A law operates within a complex socio-economic and political system, and attributing specific outcomes solely to one law or policy can be challenging. What is deemed the "best" law in one jurisdiction or context might not be universally applicable or effective in another. The reduction of multifaceted legal frameworks to a single dimension or score inevitably leads to a loss of information and can mask the intricate balancing of interests that most legislation involves.
6.4 Leveraging Law Rankings for Constructive Purposes
Despite their limitations, law rankings and legislative scorecards can be valuable tools when used appropriately:

• For Researchers and Academics: They can serve as data sources for comparative policy analysis, for studying the diffusion of policy innovations, or for researching the impact of advocacy efforts on legislative outcomes.
• For Advocates and Policymakers: These tools can help identify areas needing reform, benchmark performance against other jurisdictions or stated goals, learn about "best practices" (as defined by aligned organizations), and support arguments for policy change.1
• For Journalists and the Public: Rankings and scorecards can serve as accessible starting points for understanding complex policy debates, holding elected officials accountable for their actions, and making more informed civic choices. However, this utility is contingent upon critical consumption and an awareness of the inherent perspectives of the sources.

6.5 Emerging Trends and Future Directions
The field of law and policy evaluation is dynamic. While not strongly represented in the current material, it is logical to anticipate the emergence of new types of law rankings, potentially focusing on areas of growing societal concern such as artificial intelligence governance, climate change adaptation policies, or digital rights. The increasing sophistication of data analysis and the availability of digital platforms are also leading to more interactive and visually engaging ways of presenting these rankings, as seen with the online tools provided by organizations like the NCAJ 1 and LCV.20
Ultimately, critical consumption is paramount when using any form of law ranking. The combined impact of diverse ideological foundations, varying methodological approaches, different units of analysis (from specific statutes to broad policy environments), and the often advocacy-driven nature of these evaluations means that no single ranking can be accepted as an objective, definitive statement of a law's quality or a legislator's performance. Users cannot passively accept these rankings at face value; they must actively engage with the context, methodology, and potential biases of the source. The true value of these diverse evaluations lies not in finding a simple "worst to best" list, but in using them as a catalyst for deeper inquiry, a means of comparing different perspectives, and a stimulus for critical thinking about the complex interplay of law, policy, and society.

While the lack of a single, universally accepted "truth" in law evaluation can seem confusing, the existence of multiple, often competing, ranking systems can foster a more robust and comprehensive policy debate. A fiscally conservative ranking from the Cato Institute 3 will naturally emphasize different aspects of a law's impact than a worker-rights focused ranking from Oxfam 4 or an environmental scorecard from the LCV.20 This multiplicity ensures that various facets of a policy's impact are brought to light. The dialogue created by these competing evaluations, each bringing different evidence and values to the table, can lead to a more nuanced understanding of policy choices and their wide-ranging consequences. For the sophisticated user, navigating this landscape of diverse rankings can ultimately lead to a richer, more well-rounded understanding of legal and policy issues than could be gained from relying on a single, monolithic source of evaluation.

7. Conclusion

In response to the query, numerous websites and organizations indeed engage in ranking existing laws, policies, and legislative actions from "worst to best." This practice is widespread and takes many forms, from comprehensive, data-driven indices evaluating states or countries on specific metrics like access to justice (NCAJ Justice Index 1) or government openness (WJP Open Government Index 2), to ideologically grounded reports assessing fiscal policies (Cato Institute's Governor Report Cards 3) or worker rights (Oxfam's Best States to Work Index 4).

Legislative scorecards, produced by a multitude of advocacy groups and think tanks (e.g., ACU 16, LCV 20, AFL-CIO 22), offer an indirect method of evaluating laws by rating legislators based on their votes on key bills, thereby implying whether those legislative efforts are considered "good" or "bad" from the organization's perspective. Additionally, thematic compilations by scholars (e.g., Elie Mystal's "Bad Law" 8), think tanks (e.g., Heritage Foundation's "Worst Regulations" 10), and popular media (e.g., "weird laws" lists 12) contribute qualitative assessments, often focusing on laws perceived as particularly harmful, unjust, or irrational.

Crucially, the definition of "worst" or "best" is highly context-dependent and rarely universally agreed upon. These evaluations are almost always shaped by the specific mission, values, and ideological framework of the assessing organization. Methodologies vary significantly, ranging from quantitative analysis of statistical data and indicator-based scoring to qualitative expert critique and survey-based perceptions.

Therefore, while a rich array of resources exists for evaluating laws, critical engagement is essential. Users must consider the source's perspective, scrutinize the methodology for rigor and transparency, and understand the inherent limitations of reducing complex legal issues to a simplified ranking. When approached with discernment, these diverse evaluations can serve as valuable tools for researchers, policymakers, advocates, and the public to foster a more informed and nuanced understanding of law and its impact on society.

Works cited

1. Justice Index | NCAJ, accessed June 8, 2025, https://ncaj.org/state-rankings/justice-index
2. Global Scores & Rankings | World Justice Project, accessed June 8, 2025, https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-open-government-index/global-scores-rankings
3. Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors 2024 | Cato Institute, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2024-10/fiscal-policy-report-card-americas-governors-2024-updated.pdf
4. Best and Worst States to Work in the US - Oxfam America, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-justice/workers-rights/best-states-to-work/
5. Best and Worst States to Work in America 2022 | Oxfam, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-justice/workers-rights/best-states-to-work/best-states-to-work-2022/
6. Safest and Most Dangerous States in America in 2024 - Simmrin Law Group, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.simmrinlawgroup.com/research/the-safest-and-most-dangerous-states-in-america-2024/
7. Freedom in the 50 states - Mercatus Center, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Freedom_in_the_50_States.pdf
8. A legal scholar talks about 10 laws he says are 'ruining America' - NPR, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/03/24/nx-s1-5338663/a-legal-scholar-talks-about-that-10-laws-he-says-are-ruining-america
9. Quantifying and Remedying Overcriminalization in Federal Law | The Heritage Foundation, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/quantifying-and-remedying-overcriminalization-federal-law
10. 10 Worst Regulations of 2015 - The Heritage Foundation, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/10-worst-regulations-2015
11. Year In Review: Best And Worst Of 2024 State Healthcare Laws, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.iwf.org/2025/01/06/year-in-review-best-and-worst-of-2024-state-healthcare-laws/
12. Top 8 Weirdest Laws in the State of California, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.aerlawgroup.com/blog/top-8-weirdest-laws-in-the-state-of-california/
13. Big Ideas and Big Money: Think Tank Funding in America - Quincy Institute, accessed June 8, 2025, https://quincyinst.org/research/big-ideas-and-big-money-think-tank-funding-in-america/
14. Legislative scorecard - Wikipedia, accessed June 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_scorecard
15. Legislative Scorecards in CA | Senator Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, accessed June 8, 2025, https://sr19.senate.ca.gov/content/legislative-scorecards-ca
16. American Conservative Union - Wikipedia, accessed June 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Conservative_Union
17. CPAC Foundation - CPAC.org, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.conservative.org/
18. Rating Group: American Conservative Union (ACU) - Vote Smart - Facts For All, accessed June 8, 2025, https://votesmart.org/interest-group/1481/rating/5397
19. Senate Members by score / All issues - ProgressivePunch, accessed June 8, 2025, https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate
20. Members of Congress Voting Records – LCV National ..., accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.lcv.org/congressional-scorecard/members-of-congress/
21. LCV National Environmental Scorecard - League of Conservation Voters, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.lcv.org/congressional-scorecard/
22. Legislative Scorecard - AFL-CIO, accessed June 8, 2025, https://aflcio.org/scorecard
23. Senator Jones Earns "A" Grade from Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, accessed June 8, 2025, https://sr40.senate.ca.gov/content/senator-jones-earns-grade-howard-jarvis-taxpayers-association
24. Endorsements and ballot-measure recommendations - The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association PAC has endorsed these candidates for the November 6, 2018, Statewide General Election, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.hjta.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/HJTA-Election-Information-for-Voters-PDF_v9.pdf
25. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.hjta.org/
26. The ACLU of Northern California, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.aclunc.org/
27. Our Legislative Agenda - ACLU California Action, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.aclucalaction.org/legislation
28. Legislative Scorecard - Orange Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.orangechamber.com/legislative-scorecard/
29. CA Scorecard 2023 - California Legislative Scorecard - The Freedom Index, accessed June 8, 2025, https://thefreedomindex.org/ca/report/2023/
30. State Policy Trends at Midyear 2021: Already the Worst Legislative Year Ever for U.S. Abortion Rights | Guttmacher Institute, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2021/07/state-policy-trends-midyear-2021-already-worst-legislative-year-ever-us-abortion
31. Results: The 10 California propositions from the ballot - The Panther Newspaper, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.thepanthernewspaper.org/news/results-the-10-california-propositions-from-the-ballot
32. California 2022 ballot propositions - Ballotpedia, accessed June 8, 2025, https://ballotpedia.org/California_2022_ballot_propositions
33. At its two-year anniversary, the bipartisan infrastructure law continues to rebuild all of America - Brookings Institution, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/at-its-two-year-anniversary-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-continues-to-rebuild-all-of-america/