KUER0%

McAdams win could give Utah lawmakers pause on reviving redistricting fight 15%

By Sean Higgins0%

7/3/2026, 5:31:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Actor-Observer Bias, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 12.5% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 921 faulty-reasoning hits from 751 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.8% and a BS Rank of 15% (17,320 of 20,370 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.00% of the article peer group.

With Ben McAdams now the Democratic nominee for Utah's left-leaning 1st Congressional District, his campaign is the latest stage on which the state’s ongoing redistricting saga is set to play out. 
After his victory on primary night, McAdams said he’s under no illusions that Republican state leaders don’t want him  or any Democrat  in Congress for long. 
“They are not going to give up until they guarantee themselves ultimate and unaccountable power,” he said. 
“And we are going to fight back and make sure that the people of Utah have the ability to choose someone who reflects their values.” 
After a years-long legal fight, a district court selected a new congressional map last November. 
It ruled that the Legislature did not follow the law under Proposition 4  a 2018 citizen ballot initiative that created an independent redistricting commission  in its 2021 redistricting process. 
That ruling created the new, left-leaning district in northern Salt Lake County. 
McAdams has been tapped by Democrats to represent it. 
McAdams was widely seen as the more moderate candidate in the primary. 
Going into November, he said he plans to have a two-pronged strategy to not only win over the district's voters, but also continue the fight for Utah’s Democratic representation in Congress. 
“I think Utah voters also need to realize that, you know, the powerful forces that have carved up these districts and rigged the outcome of elections for years, they're still at it,” he said. 
GOP leaders have not been shy about their displeasure with the redistricting decision and said to expect a constitutional amendment to change it, and possibly weaken the teeth of other ballot initiatives. 
But any constitutional change would need the approval of voters  a tactic lawmakers tried in 2024 but was struck down by the Utah Supreme Court after it ruled that the ballot language was misleading. 
An effort to get a repeal of Prop 4 on the ballot also narrowly failed to gather enough signatures earlier this year. 
And voters may not be in the mood. 
Leah Murray, director of the Walker Institute of Politics and Public Service at Weber State University, said McAdams’ win and Senate President Stuart Adams' surprise primary loss make the situation complicated for GOP lawmakers. 
“Stuart Adams lost his primary race, I think, for no other reason than a lack of trust in legislative leadership,” she said. 
“That variable coming into the equation I do think has an effect, so I could totally see the legislature being like, ‘Maybe we are not picking up the repeal Prop 4 this minute.’” 
There is no specific language for any constitutional amendment yet, and a legislative spokesperson said there are no updates on timing for November. 
State law requires any proposed amendment to be published 60 days before election day, putting that deadline at Sept. 
4. 
Murray said Republican lawmakers might exercise some restraint because the “last thing they want to do is add another big drama that they're not sure how it goes.” 
“I think they've got constitutional questions around which organ of power is supposed to be drawing districts, and I actually think those are legitimate questions,” she said. 
“But I think politically they're going to take the Stuart Adams loss as an, ‘Oh, the playbook isn't actually working the way we thought it was or the way that we were predicting it was.’” 
If Murray were advising GOP leaders, she said her recommendation would be to not make getting McAdams out of office the face of the effort. 
In fact, she thinks this might not be the year at all to take up yet another redistricting fight. 
“If I were them, I would wait a year and just kind of be like, ‘What did we learn from all of our new candidates?’” 
she said. 
“I would lean into very small-c conservative values when I talked about it.” 
The next redistricting process is set to take place after the 2030 census, making the 2032 election the next time a new map could be before voters. 
For his part, McAdams said he is not wasting any time or resting on any laurels. 
“We are going to assume the worst and I expect that they will do everything they can,” he said. 
“We're going to fight to defend Prop 4.” 
McAdams will face Republican Riley Owen in November. 
The Cook Political Report rates Utah’s 1st Congressional District as a safe Democratic seat. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.3%Sean Higgins: 2.5%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.9%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Sean Higgins: 2.8%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic1.1%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 1.7%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.4%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Sean Higgins: 2.1%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 5.7%Sean Higgins: 5.2%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.9%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 1.1%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Sean Higgins: 4.1%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias2.1%This article: 12.5%Sean Higgins: 1.9%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias12.5%This article: 11.1%Sean Higgins: 5.3%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias11.1%This article: 6.1%Sean Higgins: 4.2%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.7%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 9.1%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 2.7%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.8%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Sean Higgins: 2.1%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 1.2%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.5%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.5%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.6%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.9%Sean Higgins: 4.1%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority1.9%This article: 2.9%Sean Higgins: 2.2%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.7%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.9%Sean Higgins: 4.7%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization2.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.6%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 5.5%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.8%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.6%Sean Higgins: 2.5%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.6%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.3%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.6%Sean Higgins: 2.4%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal5.6%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.1%Sean Higgins: 1.8%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.9%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.8%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.1%Sean Higgins: 1.4%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice9.1%This article: 5.1%Sean Higgins: 2.4%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination5.1%This article: 5.7%Sean Higgins: 1.3%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.7%This article: 4.3%Sean Higgins: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias4.3%This article: 4.1%Sean Higgins: 0.6%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.1%

751 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers60%attributed speech298writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageBen McAdams • 28 words • 0.0% coverageBen McAdams • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBen McAdams • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageBen McAdams • 31 words • 100.0% coverageBen McAdams • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageLeah Murray • 34 words • 0.0% coverageLeah Murray • 22 words • 0.0% coverageLeah Murray • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageLeah Murray • 28 words • 100.0% coverageLeah Murray • 27 words • 0.0% coverageLeah Murray • 35 words • 0.0% coverageLeah Murray • 25 words • 0.0% coverageLeah Murray • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLeah Murray • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageLeah Murray • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageBen McAdams • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBen McAdams • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBen McAdams • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCook Political Report • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ben McAdams

100%flagged-word coverage
178 attributed words39% of attributed speech51% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +17.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ben McAdams: 17.4%17.4%Politically Left Leaning B-14.4 ptsWriter: 14.4%Ben McAdams: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+14.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ben McAdams: 14.0%14.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.4 ptsWriter: 13.4%Ben McAdams: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%Ben McAdams: 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.