STLPR0%

Recall petitions filed against Festus mayor and three council members over data center votes 9%

By Katie Grawitch0%

5/20/2026, 8:33:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 616 faulty-reasoning hits from 659 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.8% and a BS Rank of 9% (19,959 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.20% of the article peer group.

Data center opponents in Festus filed recall petitions this week for the mayor and three council members. 
The petitions are the latest in a series of retaliations against city officials who voted in favor of a proposed hyperscale data center. 
The petitions name council members David Boyer of Ward 1, Kevin Dennis of Ward 3, Michael Cook of Ward 4 and Mayor Sam Richards. 
Circulators need signatures from 25% of the registered voters in the city or ward affected to get the recall on the ballot. 
The petition states the recall is warranted by previous milestones toward the data center project “without adequate public participation, transparency, or consideration of resident concerns.” 
“Major municipal decisions have been advanced without meaningful opportunity for public input or a vote of the citizens directly affected, demonstrating a failure to competently represent and protect the interests of the residents,” the petition reads. 
Chuck Hatfield with Stinson LLP, who provides legal counsel for the officials facing possible recall, said the petitions’ circulators failed to provide adequate reasoning to recall the officials. 
“The reason that these folks in Festus want to recall my clients appears to be that they disagree with their decisions, and that is not a reason to recall somebody in the middle of their term,” Hatfield said. 
He also requested that Jefferson County Clerk Jeannie Goff send a letter describing how she will calculate the signatures, since the city council recall petition requires signatures from a quarter of registered voters in that member’s ward. 
“Normally, you do it based on some prior vote, like when you're doing statewide petitions,” Hatfield said. 
“It's a certain percentage of however many votes were cast in the last election, and that's a little easier to figure out. 
So, she's got some math to do  which I'm sure she can do  but she needs to go through those steps.” 
Festus resident Erica Carter, who led the campaign for signatures, said circulators had limited space to describe their grievances on the petition. 
“Don't know how you could be very detailed with the 200-word limit,” Carter said. 
“What's the logic behind fighting this? 
Their attorney is saying it's not valid, and I don't understand how that could be.” 
Carter said residents believe city council members are not performing their duties. 
“The majority of our people that I've spoken to want to keep our town how it is,” Carter said. 
“We're not anti-growth, but we want to do it responsibly. 
And this is not responsible.” 
Data center opposition group Wake Up Jeffco sued the City of Festus and developer CRG last month, arguing that city officials knowingly withheld public information related to the project. 
Voters recently ousted all four city council incumbents in favor of anti-data center candidates following months of backlash against the proposed project. 
The city council is still absent one member after Ward 2 member Staci Templeton resigned in April. 
Templeton voted in favor of some milestones toward the data center project but most recently voted against an agreement with developer CRG. 
Certifying the petition 
Jefferson County Clerk Jeannie Goff said the volunteers collected “well above” the number of signatures needed to be considered for a recall. 
But she said the county clerk’s office still needs to match signatures to each person’s voter registration to verify that they live in the city or ward. 
Goff said that could take every bit of the 10 days before the deadline given to the clerk’s office Monday. 
But Goff said the office has never missed a deadline. 
“It’s a little time consuming, but we’re going to get it right,” Goff said. 
“Nobody wants to work over the holiday weekend, but that’s what we’ll do.” 
The Jefferson County Clerk’s office has until next Thursday to certify the petitions. 
If the clerk’s office finds the petitions don’t have enough signatures, the circulators have 10 days to appeal. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%Katie Grawitch: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Katie Grawitch: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic2.9%This article: 4.7%Katie Grawitch: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Katie Grawitch: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias3.3%This article: 3.5%Katie Grawitch: 8.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 2.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion2.0%This article: 1.5%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.6%Katie Grawitch: 4.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Katie Grawitch: 8.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem2.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.8%Katie Grawitch: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority6.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.4%Katie Grawitch: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization4.4%This article: 0.9%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 6.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.3%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%Katie Grawitch: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.5%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground1.5%This article: 4.4%Katie Grawitch: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.4%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.3%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote9.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.5%Katie Grawitch: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice3.5%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.0%

659 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers57%attributed speech285writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 28 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 38 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 37 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 17 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 22 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 23 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 22 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 14 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 6 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 15 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 12 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 19 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 10 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Erica Carter

79%flagged-word coverage
103 attributed words28% of attributed speech45% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-21.4 ptsWriter: 21.4%Erica Carter: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Erica Carter: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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