Missouri Supreme Court upholds Trump-backed congressional redistricting plan 4%

By Jason Rosenbaum0%

3/24/2026, 12:49:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 11.4% saturation with 38 hits. Analysis detected 121 faulty-reasoning hits from 334 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 18.8% and a BS Rank of 4% (21,012 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.00% of the article peer group.

The Missouri Supreme Court has upheld the legislature's right to redraw congressional districts in the middle of the decade. 
The court ruled 4-3 that a new map drawn in 2025 is valid, because there's nothing in the Missouri Constitution explicitly prohibiting lawmakers from doing it. 
"The crux of Appellants' argument is that, because [the Missouri Constitution] identifies a specific time when the General Assembly shall legislate new congressional districts, the General Assembly cannot redistrict at any other time," wrote Judge Zel Fischer in the majority opinion. 
"Appellants are incorrect." 
Fischer was joined by Judge Ginger Gooch, Brent Powell and Kelly Broniec. 
Judges Paul Wilson, Robin Ransom and Mary Russell dissented. 
"The plain language of [the Missouri Constitution] unmistakably states 'when' and 'how' the general assembly may  indeed, must  draw new congressional districts," Wilson wrote in his dissent. 
"When the constitution instructs the general assembly 'when' and 'how' a power is to be exercised, there is a 'strong presumption that it was designed to be exercised in that time and mode only.' 
This should end the analysis." 
The upshot of the Supreme Court's decision is that a map that seeks to oust Democratic Rep. 
Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City may end up being in effect for the 2026 election. 
But Chuck Hatfield, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, noted that it's not the end of the legal battle over the map. 
Among other things, a Cole County judge is still deciding whether a group's submission of referendum signatures for a vote prevented the 2025 map from going into effect. 
If judges ultimately say that a map passed in 2022 will be active for this election cycle, it effectively guarantees Cleaver will win since that version of the 5th District is heavily Democratic. 
"This was a battle in a bigger war," Hatfield said. 
"It was a major battle. 
But I was saying that two weeks ago." 
This is a developing story that will be updated 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias11.4%This article: 7.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 8.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.6%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 6.7%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 4.9%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 7.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice5.1%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

334 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers47%attributed speech176writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Zel Fischer • 41 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Zel Fischer • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Paul Wilson • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Paul Wilson • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Paul Wilson • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 10 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 5 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chuck Hatfield

89%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words29% of attributed speech33% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Chuck Hatfield: 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.