Missouri anti-redistricting campaign says it reached goal to force statewide vote on new map 3%

By Rudi Keller9%

3/23/2026, 8:24:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 7% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 248 faulty-reasoning hits from 916 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 14.8% and a BS Rank of 3% (20,028 of 20,545 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.50% of the article peer group.

People Not Politicians says their petition has passed the threshold of required signatures in six congressional districts, enough to qualify for Missouri's statewide ballot in November. 
The update comes just days after a judge approved a new ballot summary for the measure. 
Backers of a proposed referendum on Missouri’s gerrymandered congressional plan believe they have met the minimum number of signatures needed to make the November’s ballot. 
Updated data, posted Monday morning by People Not Politicians, the political action committee that organized a referendum petition drive, shows that the petition has at least 129% of the required signatures in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th districts. 
The last district needed to qualify for the ballot was southwest Missouri’s 7th District and 102% of the signatures needed are valid, with more than 6,000 signatures left to be checked. 
“This is what we have known to be true all along,” said Richard von Glahn, director of People Not Politicians. 
“We clearly have enough signatures.” 
The updated data, obtained from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ office via a Sunshine Law request, arrived Monday morning, von Glahn said, just days after a Cole County judge ordered revisions last week to the ballot summary for the referendum. 
In the decision delivered Friday, Circuit Judge Brian Stumpe wrote that he agreed with Hoskins that two phrases should be removed from the summary, originally prepared by Hoskins, as prejudicial and unfair. 
Stumpe also identified a third phrase that he deleted for the same reason. 
The rest of the description, describing the geographic features, is neutral and fair, Stumpe wrote, and will be retained. 
“It is neither inaccurate nor unfair to describe the map enacted by (lawmakers) in the summary statement for (the referendum),” Stumpe wrote. 
In the deleted phrases, Stumpe removed language that described the map adopted in 2022 as the “existing gerrymandered” plan that “protects incumbent politicians.” 
Both phrases were prejudicial, Hoskins had admitted in court. 
The third phrase, that the new map “better reflects statewide voting patterns,” is far too general, Stumpe wrote. 
“While Missourians may, as a whole, generally vote in a particular pattern, it is deceptive because it is not an accurate statement when voting patterns are looked at in sheer numbers, not just who gets elected,” Stumpe wrote. 
The remaining language, on compactness and community political power, is acceptable, Stumpe wrote. 
“The court finds that most of the remainder of the secretary’s summary statement captures the central features of the referred measure and explains the legal and probable consequences of those features using neutral, fair language,” he wrote. 
The new ballot language Stumpe ordered would be: 
“Do the people of the state of Missouri approve the act of the General Assembly entitled ‘House Bill No. 
1 (2025 Second Extraordinary Session),’ which repeals Missouri’s congressional plan, and replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more cities and counties intact and are more compact?” 
People Not Politicians will decide Monday afternoon whether to appeal the ruling on the ballot summary, von Glahn said. 
Stumpe’s decision settles, at least at the trial court level, one of three major outstanding legal battles surrounding the referendum on the revised congressional district map forced through the General Assembly last year under pressure from President Donald Trump. 
All three cases involve the push for a referendum on the map, organized by a political action committee called People Not Politicians. 
The campaign submitted just over 300,000 signatures to Hoskins on Dec. 9 and in one pending case, Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh is considering whether to order Hoskins to check approximately 100,000 signatures collected before he approved the petition form on Oct. 
14. 
He heard arguments again last week, but has not changed his December ruling that put a decision on hold pending the outcome of the verification process. 
Stumpe is also the judge in the third case, asking him to declare that the map approved by lawmakers in 2022 is the one in effect for this year’s elections. 
His ballot language, People Not Politicians argues, foreshadows his decision on which map is in effect. 
Phrasing that states the map passed last year would replace the current plan with a new one “means the boundaries being proposed are not currently in effect,” von Glahn said. 
The GOP goal for the map passed last year is to flip the 5th Congressional District, currently held by U.S. 
Rep. 
Emanuel Cleaver, a Kansas City Democrat. 
The GOP hopes to win seven of the state’s eight congressional seats  they currently hold six  to help preserve the slim Republican majority in the U.S. 
House of Representatives. 
Six Republicans have filed for the GOP nomination, while Cleaver has filed for reelection to a 13th term. 
Under the Missouri Constitution, a law challenged by a referendum does not go into effect until a vote is held. 
Stumpe heard arguments Feb. 9 on whether that language applies to referendums on redistricting and has not ruled. 
Hoskins and Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway contend the map approved last year will be used for this year’s elections unless the courts order otherwise. 
“There are enough signatures for a referendum. 
Which means (last year’s map) is paused,” von Glahn said. 
“I shouldn’t need a court order for an elected official to do a job that they swore an oath to do. 
But if that is needed, that will happen.” 
This story was originally published by the Missouri Independent. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.2%Rudi Keller: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias2.2%This article: 2.2%Rudi Keller: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias2.2%This article: 3.1%Rudi Keller: 7.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 3.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 3.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.3%Rudi Keller: 4.0%Columbia Missourian: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion2.3%This article: 1.1%Rudi Keller: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question1.1%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.0%Rudi Keller: 2.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice7.0%This article: 2.3%Rudi Keller: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination2.3%This article: 7.0%Rudi Keller: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rudi Keller: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

916 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers30%attributed speech645writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePeople Not Politicians • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Stumpe • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Stumpe • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Stumpe • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Stumpe • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Stumpe • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 21 words • 100.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Richard von Glahn

50%flagged-word coverage
101 attributed words37% of attributed speech9.9% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Indoctrination+20.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Richard von Glahn: 20.8%20.8%Biased Writer Voice-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Richard von Glahn: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Richard von Glahn: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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