KUOW73%

Washington lawmaker accused of ethics violations cites troubled past at public hearing 26%

By Sarah Mizes-Tan41%

6/9/2026, 4:40:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Self-Serving Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26.3% saturation with 159 hits. Analysis detected 981 faulty-reasoning hits from 605 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.8% and a BS Rank of 26% (16,298 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.50% of the article peer group.

Washington state Rep. 
Tarra Simmons, a Democrat from Bremerton, is facing ethics charges that she used her standing as a lawmaker to get a friend hired at a nonprofit she is closely associated with, and that she used leftover campaign money to help another nonprofit where she used to work. 
The accusations culminated in a rare two-day public hearing before the state’s Legislative Ethics Board this week. 
Proceedings wrapped up Tuesday evening, but it could be weeks or months before the board makes a final decision about Simmons’ conduct. 
Simmons, the first formerly incarcerated person to serve in the Legislature, could face a fine of $5,000 per violation and would have to pay the state’s legal costs, if she’s found to have violated ethics rules. 
Sitting before the board on Tuesday, Simmons clutched her emotional support dog and tearfully detailed her personal history and her decision to run for the state House. 
“I grew up in really difficult beginnings,” Simmons said. 
“I was in foster care and was in jail, had a really rough life, and so the fact that I’m even here and the first in the nation who’s been incarcerated and who became a state representative, that’s why I take this very seriously.” 
RELATED: 'They canceled me': Rep. 
Tarra Simmons fired by nonprofit she helped found 
The accusations against Simmons allege that she used her influence as a legislator to get a friend a position at a nonprofit, American Equity and Justice Group, and used money from her surplus campaign fund to help hire him. 
Simmons has denied that the man she helped hire was her boyfriend and has said she didn’t put any conditions on the donation she gave to American Equity and Justice Group. 
At the time, Simmons was close friends with the executive director and founder of American Equity and Justice Group, Anthony Powers. 
Simmons has said that she believed she was acting in a personal capacity and not in her capacity as a legislator when she suggested Powers hire her friend. 
She also mentioned that she did not believe allocating unused campaign funds as a donation was a legislative ethical issue. 
“Campaign surplus funds are definitely not something that is legislative related,” Simmons said. 
“So, I felt donating out of my campaign surplus to my friend to help his organization…I didn’t understand how that was in my role as a legislator.” 
RELATED: WA lawmaker stares down ethics charges ahead of rare public hearing 
A second ethics allegation accuses her of securing $500,000 of grant funding from the state’s 2024 supplemental budget to go toward Equity in Education Coalition, a nonprofit she was contracted to work with at the time. 
Simmons and the executive director of Equity in Education, Sharonne Navas, have both said that Simmons’ position there was not paid with this grant money. 
Simmons and her lawyer, Douglas McKinley, have noted that because Washington has a citizen Legislature  meaning its lawmakers also hold full-time jobs for nine months out of the year  there are often times where an ethics board has to be consulted to go over conflicts of interest. 
But Simmons noted at the hearing that she has always tried to be mindful of ethics laws and that she had consulted the ethics board about potential conflicts of interest a number of times since she was elected as a representative in 2021. 
RELATED: Ferguson violated ethics law by letting ex-staffer travel on state plane 
The ethics board dismissed that complaint earlier this month because Simmons made those posts on her private Facebook page. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.5%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 2.3%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.4%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 2.7%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic10.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.3%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.6%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.8%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 8.4%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 7.4%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.7%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.2%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 3.2%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.5%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias6.0%This article: 26.3%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 5.4%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias26.3%This article: 23.5%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 2.3%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias23.5%This article: 3.5%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.6%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 2.0%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.7%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.1%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.0%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.5%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect6.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.1%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 4.1%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.2%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 2.1%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 3.9%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 2.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring2.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.0%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.7%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 8.3%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion11.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.9%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.7%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.6%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof6.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.8%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.8%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.5%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.4%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading4.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.5%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.8%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote1.5%This article: 5.3%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.4%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.3%This article: 25.5%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 2.2%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice25.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.6%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.9%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 1.4%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Mizes-Tan: 0.5%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

605 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker30%attributed speech421writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageTarra Simmons • 9 words • 100.0% coverageTarra Simmons • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTarra Simmons • 28 words • 0.0% coverageTarra Simmons • 20 words • 0.0% coverageTarra Simmons • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTarra Simmons • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageTarra Simmons • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tarra Simmons

100%flagged-word coverage
184 attributed words100% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.2 ptsWriter: 26.1%Tarra Simmons: 23.9%23.9%Quote-first Misdirection-7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Tarra Simmons: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+4.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tarra Simmons: 4.9%4.9%

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.