Supreme Court rules mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day can be counted ⁠27%

By Justin Jouvenal⁠0% Patrick Marley⁠0%

6/29/2026, 2:17:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 76.5% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 117 faulty-reasoning hits from 51 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠27% (15,615 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.70% of the article peer group.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Mississippi law that allows officials to tally mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive later, a decision that keeps voting procedures in place in several states as the midterm elections loom. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 1.1%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 5.2%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 7.9%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 3.4%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 76.5%Justin Jouvenal: 58.6%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect76.5%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 16.8%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 76.5%Justin Jouvenal: 9.3%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias76.5%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 5.2%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 3.9%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 3.4%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 5.5%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 76.5%Justin Jouvenal: 42.8%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice76.5%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 2.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 14.8%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Jouvenal: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

51 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker100%attributed speech0writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Supreme Court • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSupreme Court • 39 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Supreme Court

76%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words100% of attributed speech0% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice+76.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Supreme Court: 76.5%76.5%

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.