Gothamist77%

Hakeem Jeffries pushes New York to join redistricting battle 60%

By Jimmy Vielkind0%

5/5/2026, 7:24:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Slippery Slope, and Optimism Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 27.4% saturation with 217 hits. Analysis detected 756 faulty-reasoning hits from 793 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.9% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,880 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.40% of the article peer group.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has dispatched a familiar face to enlist New York lawmakers into the national redistricting fight. 
U.S. 
Rep. 
Joe Morelle met with Gov. 
Kathy Hochul and Democratic leaders of the State Legislature during a trip to the state Capitol on Tuesday. 
Morelle, a Rochester Democrat who served in the state Assembly for almost 30 years, says he wants his former colleagues to authorize a mid-decade update to the state’s House map that could yield three new Democratic seats. 
“This is an existential threat to this democracy,” Morelle told reporters. 
“We're going to do everything we can.” 
States normally draw new lines for seats in the U.S. 
House of Representatives once every 10 years, following the release of a new U.S. 
Census. 
But this year multiple states controlled by both Republicans and Democrats are updating their maps in advance of the November midterms. 
President Donald Trump started the political arms race last summer when he urged GOP lawmakers in Texas to change their lines in a way that favors Republicans. 
Democratic officials cried foul and responded in kind: Voters in California and Virginia approved new maps in recent months. 
Analysts say Democrats were on track to gain a slight edge in districts that lean toward their party until the U.S. 
Supreme Court ruled last week that Louisiana’s congressional map in Louisiana was illegally racially gerrymandered. 
Observers said the ruling effectively gutted provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act designed to protect the collective power of racial minorities’ voting blocs against “cracking,” a practice where neighborhoods are split up into other districts. 
“After the VRA decision, all bets are off,” said David Wasserman, senior editor and election analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. 
“We’ve entered a new phase in which Democrats will be looking to exact any revenge they can, even if it means extracting even more advantage out of states they’ve already gerrymandered.” 
New York is currently represented in the U.S. 
House by seven Republicans and 19 Democrats. 
Before Trump’s moves, state lawmakers in 2022 first proposed a map that might have yielded 22 or 23 Democrats. 
But state courts agreed with Republicans and ruled those districts violated an anti-gerrymandering provision in the New York State Constitution. 
Hochul reiterated on Tuesday that she wants to see that provision struck down. 
“I don't feel like I should be handcuffed in a fight for our democracy,” Hochul said. 
“I think all’s fair in love and war. 
I've said it before, and I believe it: We did not start this. 
We did not start this. 
Donald Trump started this.” 
Morelle, who voted for the current system when he was in the Assembly, said he would let state lawmakers determine exactly what tweaks were needed. 
“I'm going to continue to fight for a national standard to make sure we have independent redistricting and fair districting all over the country,” he said. 
“But I don't want New York, and I don't want Democrats to disarm and lead to a permanent majority by the Republicans because they engage in partisan gerrymandering.” 
State Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris, a Queens Democrat, is sponsoring a constitutional amendment that doesn’t change the current process but allows for a mid-decade update. 
He said he believes another map can be drawn in response to other states’ redistricting without changing the existing rules governing districts. 
“Given the criteria that currently exists in this state, we are able to construct a different map that would be responsive to what some of these other states are doing without violating our principles,” Gianaris said. 
Lawmakers are still trying to finalize a state budget agreement. 
Asked about redistricting on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins added: “We have not had a real discussion about what we might be willing to do.” 
Good-government groups say major changes could lead to fewer competitive elections and disenfranchise voters. 
Citizens Union Executive Director Grace Rauh said the anti-gerrymandering provision and the independent commission currently tasked with drawing lines in New York are important. 
“In responding to these very real threats to democracy, it is imperative that New York lawmakers not harm their own voters,” Rauh said. 
“And they would be harming their own voters if they move forward with a plan to abandon the safeguards that are currently in place, which have made redistricting much more fair in our state.” 
New York Republicans, who are in the minority, are also objecting  and acknowledging that their party is at fault elsewhere. 
“I think it's bad policy,” state Sen. 
Tom O’Mara, a Southern Tier Republican, said Monday. 
“What's going on right now, either from a Republican state or a Democrat state  it's just leading to political warfare through redistricting.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 2.7%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.7%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.8%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.9%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias5.4%This article: 13.2%Jimmy Vielkind: 9.9%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect13.2%This article: 3.5%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion3.5%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.6%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.1%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.9%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Jimmy Vielkind: 6.7%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 4.6%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error3.9%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 4.6%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.5%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.5%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.6%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.7%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 9.6%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope9.6%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Jimmy Vielkind: 4.3%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.4%Jimmy Vielkind: 7.3%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion27.4%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.4%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.0%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.4%This article: 2.8%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.8%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.2%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.8%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.1%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice5.8%This article: 7.2%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination7.2%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 2.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

793 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers55%attributed speech354writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Morelle • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Morelle • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Wasserman • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Wasserman • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 5 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Morelle • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Morelle • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Morelle • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Gianaris • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Gianaris • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Gianaris • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAndrea Stewart-Cousins • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGrace Rauh • 24 words • 0.0% coverageGrace Rauh • 23 words • 100.0% coverageGrace Rauh • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTom O’Mara • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTom O’Mara • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTom O’Mara • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Wasserman

100%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words12% of attributed speech27% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%David Wasserman: 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.