STLPR0%

Missouri Supreme Court declines to hear case about tax issue on August ballot, just before deadline 5%

By Sarah Kellogg38%

6/8/2026, 8:02:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 19.4% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 285 faulty-reasoning hits from 377 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 19.2% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,960 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.80% of the article peer group.

The Missouri Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal in a lawsuit opposing a proposed constitutional amendment to eliminate the state income tax by expanding sales and use taxes to make up for lost revenue. 
That means Missouri voters will decide in the Aug. 4 primary election whether to give lawmakers the ability to expand those taxes. 
In May, Gov. 
Mike Kehoe announced the measure, titled Amendment 5, would appear on the August ballot instead of the November one. 
A lawsuit filed against the amendment argued that it improperly amended Missouri’s constitution. 
It also called the ballot’s summary statement misleading. 
Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh rejected those arguments last week. 
The plaintiffs appealed the ruling. 
On Friday, the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals also ruled that the amendment will remain on the August ballot. 
However, the court reversed Limbaugh’s ruling on the summary, saying it must be changed because it did not provide enough information. 
The new summary, put forth by the Court of Appeals, will now say: 
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: 
 Require legislative phase-out of the individual state income tax based on revenue growth, and authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes; 
 Curtail constitutional limits on taxing goods and services; and 
 Require local tax rate cuts without reducing school funding if local sales tax revenue increases? 
Despite succeeding on the ballot summary portion of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs in the case further appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. 
Because the Missouri Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, the Court of Appeals ruling stands. 
That means the amendment will be listed on the August ballot. 
The courts had a tight deadline to rule on this case. 
State law requires all changes to the primary ballot to be finalized on June 9. 
In addition to Amendment 5, three other proposed constitutional amendments will appear on the same ballot, including one that aims to make it harder to amend Missouri’s constitution through the initiative petition process. 
Missouri voters have approved constitutional amendments brought through initiative petition in prior elections, including overturning Missouri’s near-total abortion ban and legalizing recreational marijuana. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.1%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.4%Sarah Kellogg: 7.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect19.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Sarah Kellogg: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.4%Sarah Kellogg: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority11.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.1%Sarah Kellogg: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal6.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.8%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

377 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers36%attributed speech240writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageorganization: Missouri Supreme Court • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMike Kehoe • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageChristopher Limbaugh • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageorganization: Missouri Western District Court of Appeals • 20 words • 0.0% coverageorganization: Missouri Western District Court of Appeals • 21 words • 0.0% coverageorganization: Missouri Western District Court of Appeals • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageorganization: Missouri Supreme Court • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
37%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words39% of attributed speech91% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.