Four of Oregon’s Six U.S. Representatives Vote Against Making Daylight Saving Time Year-Round 16%

By Julian Balsley0%

7/17/2026, 3:57:59 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Nature, False Dilemma, and Middle Ground, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 9.1% saturation with 33 hits. Analysis detected 266 faulty-reasoning hits from 361 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.6% and a BS Rank of 16% (17,965 of 21,180 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.80% of the article peer group.

Four of Oregon’s six members of the U.S. 
House of Representatives voted Tuesday against a bill that would make Daylight Saving Time permanent year-round. 
The Sunshine Protection Act passed the House 308–117. 
It now goes to the Senate, where a previous version of the bill unanimously passed in 2022 before expiring in the House. 
Only Rep. 
Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.), the delegation’s sole Republican, voted yes. 
Rep. 
Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) did not cast a vote. 
Reps. 
Suzanne Bonamici, Janelle Bynum, Val Hoyle and Andrea Salinas all voted no. 
“I know people don’t like to change their clocks twice a year, but most medical experts recommend Standard rather than Daylight Saving Time,” Bonamici tells WW on why she voted against the bill. 
“Standard time is more aligned with our natural sleep cycles, and it’s safer for commuters and kids at bus stops to have more light in the morning.” 
The Sunshine Protection Act was backed by President Donald Trump, and Oregon Democrats aren’t eager to hand him any wins. 
Still, the party-line vote was puzzling given that Oregon’s state lawmakers—mostly Democrats—have passed the same legislation. 
The Oregon Legislature passed a bill in 2019 that would have made Daylight Saving Time permanent, but only if Washington and California did so as well. 
That same year, then Washington Gov. 
Jay Inslee signed a similar bill. 
And the year before, California voters approved Proposition 7, which gave their state Legislature the power to set a year-round standard time by either making daylight saving permanent or abolishing it. 
But the Legislature never did so. 
In 2023, Oregon’s Senate passed a bill that would tie Oregon’s permanent time to Washington’s and California’s if the other two states could agree. 
Whether the other bills specified sticking with Standard Time or Daylight Saving Time, Oregon’s 2023 bill didn’t take a side—it just ended changing clocks. 
But that bill died in the House. 
Oregon’s Sen. 
Ron Wyden co-sponsored the version of the Sunshine Protection Act that unanimously passed in 2022, as did Washington Sen. 
Patty Murray and California Sen. 
Alex Padilla and the late Sen. 
Dianne Feinstein—all Democrats. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.4%Julian Balsley: 3.0%Willamette Week: 3.1%Confirmation Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.3%Julian Balsley: 1.1%Willamette Week: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic3.3%This article: 1.7%Julian Balsley: 0.6%Willamette Week: 0.4%Hindsight Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Julian Balsley: 0.8%Willamette Week: 4.2%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 1.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Julian Balsley: 1.5%Willamette Week: 7.2%Negativity Bias4.4%This article: 5.5%Julian Balsley: 1.8%Willamette Week: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 3.7%Willamette Week: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Julian Balsley: 3.7%Willamette Week: 0.8%In-Group Bias5.5%This article: 0.8%Julian Balsley: 0.3%Willamette Week: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.3%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 1.8%Willamette Week: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.1%Julian Balsley: 9.1%Willamette Week: 3.3%Appeal to Authority9.1%This article: 6.6%Julian Balsley: 2.2%Willamette Week: 0.9%False Dilemma6.6%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 1.5%Willamette Week: 5.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.5%Julian Balsley: 4.3%Willamette Week: 4.5%Appeal to Emotion5.5%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 7.5%Julian Balsley: 7.5%Willamette Week: 0.4%Appeal to Nature7.5%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.4%Julian Balsley: 1.5%Willamette Week: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.4%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.6%Julian Balsley: 2.2%Willamette Week: 0.4%Middle Ground6.6%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 5.2%Willamette Week: 5.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Julian Balsley: 1.8%Willamette Week: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Julian Balsley: 0.0%Willamette Week: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

361 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker17%attributed speech301writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSuzanne Bonamici • 33 words • 0.0% coverageSuzanne Bonamici • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Suzanne Bonamici

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words100% of attributed speech30% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Suzanne Bonamici: 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.