WTOP30%

Federal judges allow new Tennessee congressional map that splits majority-Black district in Memphis 31%

By WTOP Staff30%

7/24/2026, 12:05:49 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Confirmation Bias, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 101 hits. Analysis detected 807 faulty-reasoning hits from 608 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.7% and a BS Rank of 31% (14,671 of 21,230 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.10% of the article peer group.

A federal judicial panel has allowed Tennessee to use a new congressional map that splits apart a majority-Black district in Memphis , providing another legal victory for Republicans who hope to gain an additional seat in this year’s midterm elections. 
A three-judge panel on Thursday declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the new districts, paving the way for them to be used in the Aug. 6 primary elections. 
Tennessee had revised its congressional districts in May, shortly after a U.S. 
Supreme Court ruling weakened federal Voting Rights Act protections for minorities. 
President Donald Trump has urged Republican-led states to redraw districts to their advantage to try to hold on to a slim U.S. 
House majority in the November elections. 
Tennessee is among eight GOP states to do so since last year. 
Trump is hoping the mid-decade redistricting can help Republicans buck a historical pattern in which the president’s party typically loses seats in midterms. 
Opponents of Tennessee’s new congressional districts had argued in court that Republican lawmakers who passed the plan were motivated at least partly by racial discrimination, in violation of the U.S. 
Constitution. 
Republicans have insisted they were motivated only by partisan politics, seeking to win the lone Democratic-held seat among the state’s nine districts. 
Legislatures are free to draw partisan districts under a 2019 Supreme Court ruling. 
The federal judges  two Trump appointees and one appointee of former President Barack Obama  wrote in their opinion that the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed because the plaintiffs “lack any direct evidence of racial motivation.” 
“The road to a reliably 9-0 map runs through Memphis,” the ruling states. 
“Thus, political motivations readily explain the map’s dilutive effects.” 
The Supreme Court in late April struck down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana as an illegal racial gerrymander. 
That decision weakened protections in the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed minorities an opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice. 
It also opened a pathway for Republicans in several Southern states to cite political intentions while redrawing voting districts with large minority populations that have elected Democrats. 
In Tennessee, Republicans carved up a Memphis-based district with a majority-Black population that has been represented for about two decades by Democratic Rep. 
Steve Cohen, who is white. 
The metropolitan area was instead placed in parts of three districts, with Cohen’s reshaped district stretching a couple hundred miles eastward before reaching north toward the Nashville suburbs. 
Cohen announced soon after the redraw that he was ending his bid for reelection . 
Amber Sherman, a Memphis voter and plaintiff in the lawsuit, criticized the ruling, saying it’s “painful” to head into an election under a map that weakens the voices of Black voters. 
“We deserve the same opportunity to shape our future as anyone else,” Sherman said. 
“When our voting power is diluted, our neighborhoods have a harder time making their voices heard on the issues that shape our daily lives.” 
Ari Savitzky, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project, told the judges in mid-June that Republicans who are “essentially an all-white-controlled legislative body” chose to destroy the state’s lone pocket of Black political power in federal elections. 
Attorney Taylor Meehan, representing Tennessee election officials, rejected the assertion of racially discriminatory motivations. 
She also argued it was too late to revert to Tennessee’s previous congressional districts, noting that primary election ballots already had been finalized using the new boundaries. 
Early voting began July 17. 
“Racial data was turned off” when crafting the new districts, Meehan said. 
“The map was drafted for politics.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.8%WTOP Staff: 3.2%WTOP: 3.0%Confirmation Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.7%WTOP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 3.5%WTOP: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.0%WTOP Staff: 1.1%WTOP: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.0%This article: 3.8%WTOP Staff: 0.6%WTOP: 0.6%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 1.2%WTOP: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%WTOP Staff: 8.3%WTOP: 8.3%Framing Effect14.1%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.3%WTOP: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.6%WTOP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%WTOP Staff: 0.2%WTOP: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect4.4%This article: 3.8%WTOP Staff: 1.8%WTOP: 1.8%Optimism Bias3.8%This article: 5.1%WTOP Staff: 1.7%WTOP: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.1%This article: 16.6%WTOP Staff: 8.2%WTOP: 8.6%Negativity Bias16.6%This article: 4.6%WTOP Staff: 1.2%WTOP: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.8%WTOP: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 3.6%WTOP Staff: 0.3%WTOP: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.8%WTOP: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%WTOP Staff: 0.5%WTOP: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 2.9%WTOP: 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.1%WTOP: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.0%WTOP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 1.2%WTOP: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.2%WTOP: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.0%WTOP: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%WTOP Staff: 0.4%WTOP: 0.5%Ad Hominem6.7%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.1%WTOP: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 4.6%WTOP: 4.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 1.1%WTOP: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.7%WTOP: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.1%WTOP: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 3.1%WTOP: 3.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.1%WTOP: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.5%WTOP: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.8%WTOP Staff: 4.5%WTOP: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion15.8%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.6%WTOP: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.2%WTOP Staff: 2.4%WTOP: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.2%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.0%WTOP: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.1%WTOP Staff: 0.8%WTOP: 0.7%Burden of Proof6.1%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.2%WTOP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.1%WTOP: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 1.3%WTOP: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.1%WTOP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.0%WTOP Staff: 2.3%WTOP: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.0%WTOP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.1%WTOP: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.0%WTOP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.4%WTOP Staff: 0.1%WTOP: 0.1%Special Pleading4.4%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.0%WTOP: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 1.6%WTOP: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.1%WTOP Staff: 1.1%WTOP: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.1%This article: 8.7%WTOP Staff: 4.1%WTOP: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice8.7%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.6%WTOP: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 1.1%WTOP: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.4%WTOP: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WTOP Staff: 0.2%WTOP: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

608 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers28%attributed speech439writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAmber Sherman • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAmber Sherman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAmber Sherman • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAri Savitzky • 41 words • 0.0% coverageTaylor Meehan • 14 words • 0.0% coverageTaylor Meehan • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTaylor Meehan • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTaylor Meehan • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ari Savitzky

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words24% of attributed speech51% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%Ari Savitzky: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Ari Savitzky: 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.