In a Rare Blow to Trump, the Supreme Court Just Saved Mail-In Voting—For Now ⁠77%

By Ari Berman⁠0%

6/29/2026, 2:49:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Slippery Slope, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 54.9% saturation with 341 hits. Analysis detected 1,420 faulty-reasoning hits from 621 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠77% (4,993 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.40% of the article peer group.

In a surprise victory for voting rights, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after Election Day, as long as they had been postmarked by the day of the election. 
The 5-4 decision by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices, averts a major election disaster that would have injected chaos into the midterms. 
Fourteen states have mail-in ballot grace periods on the books, and 30 states accept ballots from overseas and military voters sent before or on Election Day but only received after. 
The New York Times found that during the 2024 election “at least 725,000 ballots were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within the legally accepted post-election window.” 
Changing mail-in ballot deadlines months before the general election could have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters who could have been unaware of the stricter rules, or have their ballots thrown out because of postal delays, or because they live in remote, rural locations in states like Alaska. 
Overruling the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett affirmed that such laws are constitutional. 
“In sum, the election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day,” she wrote. 
“That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi. 
But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward. 
” 
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. 
“The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement,” Alito claimed, even though late-arriving ballots do nothing to change a voter’s choice on Election Day, since ballots are still required to be submitted by then. 
President Trump has long spread conspiracies about mail voting and most recently attacked California’s protracted vote count as a “rigged election.” 
The administration’s latest plan to undercut mail voting would require states to hand over their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security for the Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots—a form of extortion that has generated furious pushback from election officials. 
The head of the Postal Service told the Senate they were following Trump’s directive, claiming that he wanted to ensure “the right ballots are going to the right people.” 
(A federal judge last week blocked key parts of a Trump executive order that authorized such a scheme.) 
Alito’s dissent amplifies Trump’s conspiracies. 
“Today’s decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections,” he wrote. 
“Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud. 
” 
In fact, every major study has shown that mail-in voting is safe and secure, but the fact that four justices signed on to Trump’s crusade to get rid of mail-in ballots is highly disturbing and could embolden the president to attempt to take even more drastic steps to make it harder to vote. 
Today’s ruling should also not distract from the damage the Roberts Court has already done to voting rights. 
Its decision in late April, effectively destroying the Voting Rights Act, gave Republicans just enough time to dismantle majority-Black seats held by Democrats in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama. 
That was followed by a series of orders by the Republican-appointed justices on the shadow docket that expedited the GOP’s efforts to erase Black representation and give their party additional seats before the midterms. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.5%Ari Berman: 6.5%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Ari Berman: 3.4%Mother Jones: 3.2%Availability Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.6%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 3.2%Mother Jones: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Ari Berman: 11.7%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect16.4%This article: 13.4%Ari Berman: 1.3%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion13.4%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 1.7%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Ari Berman: 3.6%Mother Jones: 1.8%Pessimism Bias8.5%This article: 14.5%Ari Berman: 28.9%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.8%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Ari Berman: 1.9%Mother Jones: 1.1%In-Group Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.9%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.8%Mother Jones: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Ari Berman: 0.9%Mother Jones: 0.4%Horn Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Ari Berman: 1.4%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Ari Berman: 14.1%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem4.2%This article: 7.9%Ari Berman: 2.4%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man7.9%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 5.9%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.4%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 16.3%Ari Berman: 7.8%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope16.3%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.5%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.5%Ari Berman: 6.8%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization5.5%This article: 2.9%Ari Berman: 1.2%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring2.9%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.9%Ari Berman: 11.1%Mother Jones: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion20.9%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 2.0%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 3.9%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 1.7%Mother Jones: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.9%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.4%Mother Jones: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 1.5%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.6%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.7%Ari Berman: 2.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 54.9%Ari Berman: 31.0%Mother Jones: 9.3%Biased Writer Voice54.9%This article: 8.5%Ari Berman: 5.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination8.5%This article: 12.2%Ari Berman: 32.3%Mother Jones: 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias12.2%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 1.3%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ari Berman: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

621 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers16%attributed speech523writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Amy Coney Barrett

0%flagged-word coverage
63 attributed words64% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-65.2 ptsWriter: 65.2%Amy Coney Barrett: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-14.5 ptsWriter: 14.5%Amy Coney Barrett: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.1 ptsWriter: 10.1%Amy Coney Barrett: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Amy Coney Barrett: 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.