Green Bay clerk resigns amid investigations into duplicate ballot incidents 32%

By Alexander Shur17% Votebeat15%

8/7/2026, 11:50:10 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.5% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 776 faulty-reasoning hits from 563 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.9% and a BS Rank of 32% (20,800 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.00% of the article peer group.

Green Bay Clerk Celestine Jeffreys has resigned amid a state investigation into how her office sent duplicate ballots to voters two elections in a row, the city announced Friday. 
Jeffreys had been on administrative leave since July 9. 
Her resignation came shortly after the first stage of a Wisconsin Elections Commission investigation showed just how central Jeffreys was to the city sending out 152 duplicate ballots in the April election and an undisclosed number ahead of the August primary. 
“We wish her the best in her future endeavors,” the city said in a brief, two-sentence statement, declining to comment further on the matter. 
Stacy Menke, previously the city’s deputy clerk, is serving as interim clerk for the August primary election. 
The job of picking a permanent replacement will fall to Mayor Eric Genrich, although his nominee must be confirmed by the city council. 
Like all municipal clerk positions in Wisconsin, the Green Bay clerk’s office is nonpartisan. 
Previously the mayor’s chief of staff, Jeffreys became city clerk in January 2021. 
Her tenure was marked by extensive scrutiny, and it followed a turbulent year for the city’s elections. 
When she entered the role, the city was under fire, especially from Republicans, for allegedly giving an election consultant too much authority over its operations during the November 2020 election. 
The Wisconsin Elections Commission found no wrongdoing. 
But that incident, in part, led to a statewide ban on outside election assistance and a particular focus from conservatives on Green Bay’s election operations. 
Jeffreys’ practices repeatedly drew criticism even before the duplicate ballot incidents. 
The commission in late 2023 said Jeffreys’ policy of letting a third party return absentee ballots for someone who’s sick but not disabled likely broke state law. 
The following year, she admitted that for several elections, she hadn’t followed the state law requiring clerks to deactivate certain voter registrations. 
The law applies when postcards sent to Election Day registrants at their stated mailing addresses are returned as undeliverable. 
She didn’t follow that law because she wasn’t aware of it, a city attorney said on her behalf. 
As officials began to probe her recent duplicate ballot mistakes, former Brown County Clerk Sandy Juno, a Republican, told the city to consider moving on from Jeffreys. 
“I would hope that when you go through this process, you really evaluate how things are done, because you may not have the right person in that job,” she said. 
Sam Liebert, the Wisconsin state director of All Voting is Local and a former municipal clerk, said voters need not worry about the transition coming amid the midterm elections. 
“Green Bay has experienced leadership transitions before, and the systems in place are designed to ensure continuity regardless of personnel changes,” he said. 
“Voters in Green Bay can still vote with confidence, knowing election workers across the city remain committed to conducting free and democratic elections.” 
Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. 
Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org . 
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. 
Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here . 
Green Bay clerk resigns amid investigations into duplicate ballot incidents is a post from Wisconsin Watch , a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. 
Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%Alexander Shur: 1.8%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Alexander Shur: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Availability Heuristic4.4%This article: 2.5%Alexander Shur: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic2.5%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.1%Alexander Shur: 4.9%Wisconsin Watch: 3.1%Framing Effect17.1%This article: 1.6%Alexander Shur: 0.9%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Loss Aversion1.6%This article: 4.1%Alexander Shur: 1.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Alexander Shur: 2.1%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Optimism Bias5.2%This article: 4.1%Alexander Shur: 1.9%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Pessimism Bias4.1%This article: 21.5%Alexander Shur: 5.1%Wisconsin Watch: 3.8%Negativity Bias21.5%This article: 3.2%Alexander Shur: 0.9%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Alexander Shur: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%In-Group Bias5.3%This article: 4.8%Alexander Shur: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Alexander Shur: 1.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%Recency Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Alexander Shur: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Ad Hominem4.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.9%Alexander Shur: 1.4%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Appeal to Authority8.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%Alexander Shur: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.7%Alexander Shur: 1.7%Wisconsin Watch: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion5.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.7%Alexander Shur: 2.6%Wisconsin Watch: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%Alexander Shur: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.7%Alexander Shur: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 1.0%Biased Writer Voice6.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Shur: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Alexander Shur: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.2%

563 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers26%attributed speech417writer words
Selected voice

Sam Liebert

100%flagged-word coverage
75 attributed words51% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%Sam Liebert: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Sam Liebert: 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.