Another Democratic plot to gerrymander 3 congressional seats goes down in FLAMES ⁠54%

By Carlos Garcia⁠64%

6/30/2026, 12:50:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Ad Hominem, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.3% saturation with 114 hits. Analysis detected 809 faulty-reasoning hits from 332 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (10,238 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.20% of the article peer group.

Democrats just lost the opportunity to gain three seats in the battle to control Congress after a state supreme court blocked their effort to redistrict the election maps. 
The effort by a group called Coloradans for a Level Playing Field involved three separate ballot proposals, one of which would have changed the Colorado redistricting map for the 2028 and 2030 election cycles, if approved by the voters. 
Redistricting would have given Democrats the chance to pick up three extra seats. 
The Colorado Supreme Court said the effort violated the "single subject requirement" for ballot measures. 
Chief Justice Monica Márquez wrote in one of the unanimous decisions issued Monday, "While Trump and his MAGA allies regularly sidestep the law and ignore voters, efforts to respond have once again been dealt a legal setback over a technicality." 
"Changing the constitutionally mandated frequency of redistricting — however temporary the change — is not merely a mechanism to administer the new congressional district map," Márquez wrote. 
"Instead, it represents a seismic shift to Colorado’s longstanding redistricting process enshrined in the state constitution." 
Curtis Hubbard, the spokesperson for the group sponsoring the bills, called the ruling "disappointing" in a statement on the group's website. 
"While Trump and his MAGA allies regularly sidestep the law and ignore voters, efforts to respond have once again been dealt a legal setback over a technicality," he added. 
Trump is WINNING the redistricting battle against Democrats, CBS analysis finds 
According to the Coloradans for a Level Playing Field's math, Republicans may be able to pick up as many as 11 seats in Congress now that the group's gerrymandering initiatives have been blocked. 
The group will not have the opportunity to amend their initiatives and have them appear on the next election ballot, ending the effort in Colorado. 
Like Blaze News? 
Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. 
Sign up here! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.3%Carlos Garcia: 4.1%Blaze Media: 5.6%Confirmation Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 3.4%Blaze Media: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.6%Blaze Media: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias9.9%This article: 12.0%Carlos Garcia: 11.1%Blaze Media: 9.6%Framing Effect12.0%This article: 8.4%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion8.4%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.2%Blaze Media: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.7%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.3%Carlos Garcia: 12.1%Blaze Media: 9.8%Negativity Bias34.3%This article: 16.3%Carlos Garcia: 1.6%Blaze Media: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias16.3%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.2%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.8%Blaze Media: 2.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.7%Blaze Media: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Primacy Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 24.4%Carlos Garcia: 3.4%Blaze Media: 2.6%Ad Hominem24.4%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.8%Blaze Media: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.5%Carlos Garcia: 3.6%Blaze Media: 3.7%Appeal to Authority4.5%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.4%Blaze Media: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.9%Carlos Garcia: 5.1%Blaze Media: 8.9%Hasty Generalization13.9%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.6%Blaze Media: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.3%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 0.9%Bandwagon3.3%This article: 26.5%Carlos Garcia: 10.5%Blaze Media: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion26.5%This article: 8.1%Carlos Garcia: 0.9%Blaze Media: 1.5%Begging the Question8.1%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 2.1%Blaze Media: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 2.3%Blaze Media: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%Carlos Garcia: 2.1%Blaze Media: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.1%Carlos Garcia: 3.9%Blaze Media: 2.8%Unattributed Quote8.1%This article: 20.8%Carlos Garcia: 3.9%Blaze Media: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection20.8%This article: 3.6%Carlos Garcia: 6.5%Blaze Media: 10.6%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 5.1%Carlos Garcia: 2.3%Blaze Media: 4.5%Indoctrination5.1%This article: 20.8%Carlos Garcia: 0.9%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias20.8%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 5.7%Blaze Media: 7.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Carlos Garcia: 3.6%Blaze Media: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.9%

332 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers55%attributed speech151writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageColorado Supreme Court • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMonica Márquez • 40 words • 100.0% coverageMonica Márquez • 27 words • 100.0% coverageMonica Márquez • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Hubbard • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Hubbard • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageColoradans for a Level Playing Field • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Monica Márquez

100%flagged-word coverage
83 attributed words46% of attributed speech58% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+48.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Monica Márquez: 48.2%48.2%Politically Left Leaning B+48.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Monica Márquez: 48.2%48.2%Unattributed Quote+32.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Monica Márquez: 32.5%32.5%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.2 ptsWriter: 15.2%Monica Márquez: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.3 ptsWriter: 11.3%Monica Márquez: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%Monica Márquez: 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.