STLPR0%

Missourians will not be able to enshrine St. Louis sheriff elections in constitution 4%

By Lilley Halloran0% Brian Munoz0%

5/15/2026, 2:59:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Status Quo Bias, Burden of Proof, and Framing Effect, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 7.7% saturation with 40 hits. Analysis detected 143 faulty-reasoning hits from 518 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 18.1% and a BS Rank of 4% (21,061 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.20% of the article peer group.

An effort to ask Missouri voters if the St. 
Louis sheriff should be elected failed to make it across the finish line in the legislative session that ended Friday. 
Because St. 
Louis sheriff is already an elected position, there won’t be a change to the status quo, even with the exclusion of St. 
Louis from the ballot measure. 
The state Senate voted 24-9 Friday in favor of legislation to put a constitutional amendment in front of voters that would require most of the state’s sheriffs to be elected. 
On the same day, the House voted 95-46 in favor of the resolution. 
Although most sheriffs in Missouri, including in St. 
Louis, are typically already elected, the proposed constitutional amendment would enshrine that process in the state constitution. 
In addition to St. 
Louis, St. 
Louis and St. 
Charles counties are excluded from the resolution. 
The latter two exceptions are rooted in voter-led actions. 
In 1955, voters in St. 
Louis County approved a measure eliminating their sheriff’s office and replacing it with a county-wide police department. 
In 2012, St. 
Charles voters approved the creation of the St. 
Charles County Police Department and effectively replaced the sheriff as the county’s top law enforcement official. 
But the inclusion of St. 
Louis has been a point of contention in the legislature. 
The city’s sheriff’s department was included in legislation that would require it to be constitutionally elected, after an amendment offered by Sen. 
Karla May, D-St. 
Louis was passed by the Senate. 
But last month, the House Crime and Public Safety Committee chair, Rep. 
Jeff Myers, R-Warrenton, said the Senate bill's sponsor, Sen. 
Jill Carter, R-Granby, asked him to add an amendment that undoes May’s inclusion of St. 
Louis. 
That came a week after interim Sheriff John Hayden Jr. testified in support of the measure that could make his office constitutionally elected. 
“The reasons why are ... because of their charter form of government. 
Their responsibilities aren't the same as the rest of the counties,” Myers told St. 
Louis Public Radio. 
“That’s why I added the amendment back in.” 
Rep. 
Steve Butz, D-St. 
Louis, successfully added St. 
Louis back on the House floor, but it was stripped again before a final vote in both chambers. 
There has been a three-way debate over who should be able to choose the next person for the St. 
Louis role. 
Former Sheriff Alfred Montgomery was officially ousted in December, not long after Hayden was appointed interim sheriff. 
A St. 
Louis judge ruled that Mayor Cara Spencer will have the authority but must include the Board of Aldermen and St. 
Louis Comptroller Donna Baringer. 
The city filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Catherine Hanaway in December, arguing the mayor has the responsibility to make the appointment. 
The judge ruled against Hanaway’s opinion that the authority should lie with Gov. 
Mike Kehoe. 
A competing bill would have put the onus of picking the St. 
Louis sheriff on judges of the 22nd Judicial Circuit, but it died in a Senate committee this year. 
The legislation is SJR 87. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Lilley Halloran: 5.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.5%Lilley Halloran: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 3.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 6.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 4.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 10.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.7%Lilley Halloran: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.7%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.2%Lilley Halloran: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.2%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.7%Lilley Halloran: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.7%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.7%Lilley Halloran: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice1.7%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lilley Halloran: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

518 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers12%attributed speech456writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Myers • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Myers • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Myers • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Myers • 12 words • 100.0% coverageJeff Myers • 14 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Public Radio • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Myers • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jeff Myers

36%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words95% of attributed speech27% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote+20.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jeff Myers: 20.3%20.3%Biased Writer Voice-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Jeff Myers: 0.0%0.0%

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.