Judge rewrites ballot summary for referendum on Missouri’s new congressional map 27%

By Jason Rosenbaum0%

3/20/2026, 10:29:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 22.6% saturation with 123 hits. Analysis detected 426 faulty-reasoning hits from 545 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.5% and a BS Rank of 27% (15,509 of 21,180 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.20% of the article peer group.

A Cole County judge rewrote a ballot summary for a potential referendum on Missouri’s new redistricting plan. 
Soon after lawmakers passed new congressional lines aimed at ousting Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, opponents of that plan filed a referendum to place the new map up for a vote in November. 
Secretary of State Denny Hoskins then wrote this ballot summary: 
Do the people of the state of Missouri approve the act of the General Assembly entitled "House Bill No. 
1 (2025 Second Extraordinary Session)," which repeals Missouri's existing gerrymandered congressional plan that protects incumbent politicians, and replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more cities and counties intact, are more compact, and better reflect statewide voting patterns? 
The group behind the referendum, People Not Politicians, sued Hoskins, contending that the summary was insufficient and unfair. 
Hoskins’ attorneys conceded that the phrases “gerrymandered” and “protects incumbent politicians” were argumentative, which prompted Cole County Judge Brian Stumpe to remove those lines in a ruling delivered on Friday afternoon. 
Stumpe also excised the phrase “better reflects statewide voting patterns,” writing that the line is “intentionally argumentative and likely to create prejudice, and is therefore stricken from the summary.” 
He kept the description of the new map as “keeping more cities and counties intact” and as being “more compact.” 
The new summary for the referendum now reads: 
Do the people of the state of Missouri approve the act of the General Assembly entitled "House Bill No. 
1 (2025 Second Extraordinary Session)," which repeals Missouri's congressional plan, and replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more cities and counties intact, and are more compact? 
People Not Politicians' Richard von Glahn said his group hadn't decided yet whether it will appeal Stumpe's ruling. 
The group noted in a statement, though, that Stumpe's ruling may foreshadow "likely legal defeat for the state in an ongoing legal dispute on whether the map passed during the 2025 special session" can go into effect before a public vote. 
"While the ballot summary case does not officially determine the suspension of HB1, ballot language that declares that a yes vote on the referendum would ‘repeal Missouri’s congressional plan, and replace it with new congressional boundaries’ does logically require that the current plan must be different from the map that would be enacted if voters vote yes," People Not Politicians' statement said. 
Stumpe is also the judge in the case over whether the new map didn't go into effect after People Not Politicians turned in signatures. 
He has yet to rule on that case. 
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said: “The Secretary of State and local election officials around the state continue to process the proposed referendum on the Missouri First Map. 
No decision has been made on certification yet. 
"If the referendum does eventually qualify for the ballot, Missourians will benefit from a fair ballot summary thanks to today’s ruling by Judge Stumpe. 
As the court rightly recognized, the Missouri First Map splits fewer counties and municipalities, and is thus more compact, than the prior congressional map.” 
Hoskins has yet to say if the redistricting referendum will make the November ballot. 
Referendum proponents say they have enough signatures for a statewide vote. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 8.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect22.6%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 6.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 4.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 7.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion7.2%This article: 7.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question7.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice5.9%This article: 7.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination7.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

545 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers57%attributed speech233writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDenny Hoskins • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDenny Hoskins • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Stumpe • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Stumpe • 28 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 18 words • 0.0% coveragePeople Not Politicians • 41 words • 0.0% coveragePeople Not Politicians • 62 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Hanaway • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Denny Hoskins

67%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words19% of attributed speech14% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Indoctrination+67.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Denny Hoskins: 67.2%67.2%Biased Writer Voice-13.7 ptsWriter: 13.7%Denny Hoskins: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.