St. Louis Board of Aldermen looks to set sheriff election for March 30%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

12/24/2025, 7:27:11 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Anchoring Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 51.7% saturation with 203 hits. Analysis detected 361 faulty-reasoning hits from 393 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.

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen says a special election to fill the vacant sheriff’s office will be held March 3. 
Board President Megan Green announced Tuesday that she is calling a special meeting of the board on Dec. 29 to pass a resolution setting the date for the contest to replace Alfred Montgomery. 
The sheriff was ousted Monday after Judge Steven Ohmer found he had “willfully neglected his official duties.” 
“The Board of Aldermen, in consultation with the Board of Election Commissioners, is acting on one of its fundamental duties by calling for a special election,” Green said in a statement. 
“The Board is working swiftly and collectively to comply with state law on this matter and to ensure the public is centered in naming our next sheriff.” 
State law is clear that if a vacancy in the office of sheriff happens more than nine months before a scheduled general election, the county commission  in this case, the Board of Aldermen  “shall immediately order a special election to fill the same.” 
What is not clear is who has the power to fill the seat before that election. 
Both Mayor Cara Spencer and Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe have asserted they have the power to fill that vacancy through appointment. 
Spencer filed a lawsuit earlier this month, after Montgomery was jailed in a federal criminal case but before he was removed from office, asking a judge to rule in her favor and give her the sole authority to make the appointment. 
The board is asking for permission to join the case and argue that it also has a say in that appointment. 
A spokesman for Spencer said in a statement that it had worked with the board and city elections officials to identify the next steps under state law and the timeline for the election. 
“We continue to review whether certain additional steps are needed for this process to be run completely in accordance with the law, and we look forward to restoring trust to the Sheriff's Office and focusing on matters more important to the city and St. Louisans,” said the spokesman, Rasmus Jorgensen. 
Kehoe and Attorney General Catherine Hanaway did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 
Hanaway has also expressed a belief that Kehoe would fill the vacancy. 
This story has been updated with comments from Mayor Cara Spencer. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.6%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect19.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 51.7%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias51.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority3.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

393 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.