STLPR0%

Missourians could decide on making it harder for the legislature to overturn ballot items 82%

By Jason Rosenbaum0%

5/3/2026, 5:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Begging the Question, and Appeal to Emotion, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 14.2% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 750 faulty-reasoning hits from 683 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.8% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,963 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.90% of the article peer group.

Missourians could decide this fall whether to make it much harder for the legislature to overturn voter-approved initiatives. 
Backers of the Respect Missouri Voters initiative said they delivered more than 350,000 signatures to Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ office on Sunday. 
If they reach certain signature thresholds in six out of eight congressional districts, the proposed constitutional amendment will be on the November ballot. 
Among other provisions, the Respect Missouri Voters initiative: 
 Requires ballot summaries to be “clear, unbiased, fair, accurate and easy to understand.” 
It bars the legislature from curtailing how judges rewrite ballot summaries. 
 Disallows the legislature from passing any law or referring any ballot initiative to voters that weakens the initiative petition process. 
That includes boosting the threshold needed to approve a constitutional amendment or raising the number of signatures needed for something to qualify for the ballot. 
 Bars lawmakers from changing or repealing any voter-approved statute or constitutional amendment unless 80% of the legislature agrees to refer alterations to a statewide vote. 
Benjamin Singer of Respect Missouri Voters said that the high bar to change any voter-approved measure would apply to anything enacted after Jan. 
1, 2010. 
“We didn't want to have a situation where we're relitigating 120 years of law,” Singer said. 
“We just wanted to say, ‘Look, if there's something that people have voted on in the last 15 years, the people decided, let's move forward from here and protect the will of the people.'” 
Singer said his initiative was able to garner interest after the GOP-controlled legislature last year overturned a voter-approved paid sick leave initiative and placed a measure repealing a 2024 constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights on this year’s ballot. 
“Other states have this in their constitution where they require a huge bipartisan supermajority if politicians want to change something that people have voted on and send it back to a vote of the people,” Singer said. 
“And so that's what we are going to have. 
Because Missouri, unfortunately, has been one of the states that doesn't have this protection of the will of the people in our constitution.” 
Dueling ballot items 
Missouri lawmakers placed a separate measure on the 2026 ballot that would require any constitutional amendment put on the ballot through initiative petition to pass in eight out of eight congressional districts. 
Singer said his group would be working to defeat the proposal. 
“And we have to pass the Respect Missouri Voters amendment, which will prevent them from trying to take away this freedom ever again,” Singer said. 
Gov. 
Mike Kehoe has not said whether Amendment 4 will appear on the ballot in August or November. 
His office said he plans to make that decision by May 22. 
It’s also possible that the Respect Missouri Voters initiative could impact future changes to Missouri’s congressional map. 
That’s because the group’s proposal states the legislature cannot propose, pass or refer any law “similar in effect to a law rejected by referendum petition, unless 80 percent of the House or Senate refer the change to a vote of the people.” 
That means if a referendum on a map lawmakers passed in 2025 makes the 2026 ballot, voters reject the 2025 congressional map, and the Respect Missouri Voters initiative passes, it may be difficult for lawmakers to approve new congressional lines in 2027 without 80% of the legislature referring it to a statewide vote. 
“It is not right for politicians and special interests to try to undermine what the people of Missouri voted on that is counter to the spirit and the letter of our constitution,” Singer said. 
“And so for any citizen petition, whether it's an initiative or a referendum, constitutional or statute, we have to protect the voice of the people. 
That's who government is supposed to work for.” 
Hoskins has not said whether the referendum on the congressional map will appear on the November ballot. 
The group behind the referendum, People Not Politicians, has pointed to numbers released by Hoskins’ office showing it collected enough signatures. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias5.6%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: 3.7%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias3.7%This article: 5.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 8.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect5.1%This article: 6.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion6.0%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: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias2.5%This article: 3.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 6.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias3.4%This article: 5.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias5.0%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: 8.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect2.0%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: 5.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem5.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority5.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.8%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope7.8%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: 8.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 7.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion8.2%This article: 8.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question8.6%This article: 5.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%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: 14.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.2%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: 3.8%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading3.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote8.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 1.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination1.2%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%

683 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker42%attributed speech398writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 2 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 34 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 38 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 37 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 11 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 34 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 25 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Singer • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Benjamin Singer

84%flagged-word coverage
285 attributed words100% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%Benjamin Singer: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+2.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Benjamin Singer: 2.8%2.8%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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