Missouri Supreme Court throws out voter registration restrictions but keeps photo ID law 7%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

3/24/2026, 9:00:28 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 28.5% saturation with 147 hits. Analysis detected 334 faulty-reasoning hits from 515 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23% and a BS Rank of 7% (20,462 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.50% of the article peer group.

Missouri lawmakers in 2022 passed legislation requiring voters to show photo identification to cast a ballot and placing limits on the work of groups who hold voter registration drives. 
On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court ruled against the registration restrictions but allowed photo ID to continue. 
The Missouri Supreme Court has rejected legislation that made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters to conduct voter registration drives. 
The high court on Tuesday ruled that parts of a 2022 elections law were "facially unconstitutional restrictions on core political speech," and left in place a lower court ruling that permanently blocked their enforcement. 
Also on Tuesday, the high court ruled that groups who had challenged the state's voter photo ID law did not have the legal authority to file suit. 
The court did not address the questions of whether the law was unconstitutional. 
Third-party registration limits 
In the last week of the 2022 legislative session, the state House on a party line vote approved a massive elections bill. 
It included provisions that blocked groups like the League of Women Voters and the Missouri NAACP from paying people to conduct voter registration drives. 
It also required any person who solicited more than 10 voter registration applications to register with the state. 
The law also forbid anyone from encouraging people to vote absentee. 
The League and the NAACP sued. 
A lower court found the provisions unconstitutional, and the state appealed. 
Writing for the majority, Judge Mary Russell noted that the U.S. 
Supreme Court had previously found that circulating petitions was core political speech, which requires the highest level of protection. 
"Encouraging others to vote is pure speech and, as core First Amendment activity, is entitled to the same protection as the circulation of an initiative petition. 
Discussion of whether to register to vote and participate in the democratic process is a matter of societal concern," she said. 
Nimrod Chapel, the president of the NAACP, said the organization was thrilled with the ruling. 
"You tried to criminalize free speech, our ability to encourage others to engage in good citizenship, which is voting at its core," he said. 
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Ginger Gooch wrote that her colleagues had misinterpreted the definition of the word solicit, which she said was intended to apply only to those who both distribute and collect voter registration forms. 
Voter photo ID 
That 2022 legislation also reinstated Missouri's requirement that voters show an approved form of photo identification. 
The NAACP and the League sued, along with three Missourians who argued that the new requirements placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. 
The court ruled Tuesday that none of the parties had the legal authority to bring the lawsuit. 
They did not decide whether the law was constitutional. 
Denise Lieberman, an attorney with the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, said she was "disappointed that the Missouri Supreme Court concluded, against its prior rulings, that voters and their advocates lack the ability to bring challenges to discriminatory photo ID laws." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.5%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect28.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.7%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority3.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.7%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion4.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.8%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice7.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 7.8%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

515 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers25%attributed speech385writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Mary Russell • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Mary Russell • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Mary Russell • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNimrod Chapel • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDenise Lieberman • 40 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Denise Lieberman

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words31% of attributed speech22% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Denise Lieberman: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Denise Lieberman: 100.0%100.0%

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.