KQED⁠61%

Threats to California’s Vote-By-Mail Mount Before June Primary ⁠0%

By Scott Shafer⁠0% Marisa Lagos⁠87% Guy Marzorati⁠71%

3/27/2026, 11:14:56 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 80.7% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 522 faulty-reasoning hits from 119 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

California’s vote-by-mail system is facing a two-pronged attack. 
In Riverside County, the sheriff has seized hundreds of thousands of ballots from the November election, making highly questionable allegations of fraud. 
Plus, the U.S. 
Supreme Court is scrutinizing the practice of counting mail-in ballots that arrive after election day. 
Scott, Marisa and Guy discuss the threats to California’s voting laws and what they could mean for the June primary. 
Then, they break down a debate debacle in Los Angeles, where the University of Southern California abruptly cancelled a scheduled gubernatorial debate after four candidates of color who were not invited protested that the criteria used to determine who to include was biased. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 6.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Scott Shafer: 6.5%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 66.4%Scott Shafer: 30.0%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect66.4%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.2%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.5%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.9%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 68.1%Scott Shafer: 22.1%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias68.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.9%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.8%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.1%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 5.3%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.5%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.6%Scott Shafer: 7.6%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority12.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.4%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 4.2%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 36.1%Scott Shafer: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring36.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.5%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.9%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 36.1%Scott Shafer: 1.7%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal36.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.5%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.5%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.6%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 54.6%Scott Shafer: 1.8%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote54.6%This article: 16.8%Scott Shafer: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection16.8%This article: 80.7%Scott Shafer: 20.5%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice80.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.7%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 36.1%Scott Shafer: 8.4%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias36.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 8.5%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

119 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers49%attributed speech61writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSupreme Court • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageUniversity of Southern California • 43 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words74% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%University of Southern California: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+63.9 ptsWriter: 36.1%University of Southern California: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+37.7 ptsWriter: 62.3%University of Southern California: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-32.8 ptsWriter: 32.8%University of Southern California: 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.