Talk:Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election/Archive 1

this article NEEDS a better title
that is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.143.143 (talk • contribs) 04:52, March 21, 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! Brendanww2 (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The title should be changed to Republican efforts to improve election security following the 2020 presidential election

I would like to second that Cleveruserofname3 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh really? What's next? Your suggestion that rape victims be called unwilling sperm recipients?OrdinaryAverageTy (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a strong consensus not to move to the proposed target. Various alternatives have also been presented, but none of them gained consensus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Republican efforts to make voting laws more restrictive following the 2020 presidential election → Proposed voting laws following the 2020 presidential election – Rephrased the current title. I agree that they are restrictive but I did not want to put the word 'restrictive' on the title if users perceived that as biased. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: Reliable sources call the laws "restrictive" or use similar wording, so they should be labelled as such. For example:
 * The Washington Post: How GOP-backed voting measures could create hurdles for tens of millions of voters, Republicans want to make it much harder to vote. That strategy could backfire., What the GOP voting restrictions actually do vs. what proponents claim
 * The New York Times: G.O.P. and Allies Draft ‘Best Practices’ for Restricting Voting, Republicans Aim to Seize More Power Over How Elections Are Run, In Statehouses, Stolen-Election Myth Fuels a G.O.P. Drive to Rewrite Rules
 * The Associated Press: ‘An all-hands moment’: GOP rallies behind voting limits, As GOP makes it harder to vote, few Republicans dissent, GOP lawmakers seek tougher voting rules after record turnout
 * Politico: After Trump’s loss and false fraud claims, GOP eyes voter restrictions across nation, GOP pushes voting restrictions, while Democrats back expansions, State Republicans push new voting restrictions after Trump’s loss
 * NPR: After Record 2020 Turnout, State Republicans Weigh Making It Harder To Vote, Why Republicans Are Moving To Fix Elections That Weren't Broken, Voting Reforms May Look Very Different Between Republican And Democratic States ("many Republican-led states are seeking to add voting restrictions")
 * CBS News: Proposals to restrict voting gain traction in Republican states
 * USA Today: Democrats and Republicans are battling over voting rights in Congress and at statehouses. Which side will win? ("As Republican state lawmakers across the country propose measures that would limit access to voting...")
 * Los Angeles Times: As the For the People Act voting bill is debated, Republicans in dozens of states push restrictions
 * CNN: Major conservative groups unify behind state GOP efforts to restrict voting, At least 45 states have seen bills aimed at voter suppression. Here's why
 * Vox: State GOPs have already introduced dozens of bills restricting voting access in 2021
 * Furthermore, this article is explicitly about a Republican effort—an effort explicitly mentioned in the references I've provided for this page, as well as by prominent figures like Joe Biden (Biden slams GOP vote-restriction bills as 'sick' and 'un-American' while Georgia moves to suppress the vote). That this is a Republican effort is lost in the proposed title. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * With that said, I am generally in favor of a more concise title for this page—just not the proposed title. The title needs to note that this is a Republican effort and should describe it as reliable sources describe it: as "restrictive" or something similar. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the current title is clunky and could be changed, "restrictive" is accurate and it would not be neutral to ignore that. Reywas92Talk 06:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – as per the comments above, this is being driven by Republicans and is about making it more restrtive. Perhaps something like Republican Party franchise restriction proposals in 2020–21 would be a more concise title? Number   5  7  13:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose per above, Moreover the proposed title would create false balance (see WP:VALID), it was only republicans putting forward these laws and that should be clear, admittedly it probably belongs in the lead—blindlynx (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the comments above. As noted, restrictive voting laws are being proposed by Republicans and the sources make it clear. However, I do agree a less lengthy title would be appropriate. SlackingViceroy (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In the interest of brevity perhaps "Republican voting restriction efforts" or similar would be more appropriate—blindlynx (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading these arguments, I believe that the —blindlynx's proposed title "Republican voting restriction efforts following the 2020 presidential election" is more appropriate and neutral from objective coverage. Since the consensus is unanimous and no one has argued otherwise, I suggest we close this?Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I have to say, the current title does look a little WP:POV to me. Also, it's fairly awkwardly worded whereas the proposed one is more succinct.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now, as this article primarly focuses on new laws that critics claim constitute voter suppression. However, I do agree that the current title is a bit POV. However, I will point out that this article could ve expanded to include efforts to make voting easier (it already includes info about H.R. 1). Therefore, I would support a similar title if the article covered all proposed electoral changes following the 2020 election. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The current title is so long and in desperate need of shortening, but perhaps not that way. Love of Corey (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about Proposed voting restrictions following the 2020 United States presidential election or American voting law amendments following the 2020 presidential election ?
 * Support: Sources are to be found for all sides of the debate, use title that is neutral, not subject to biasis. 70.23.2.123 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: The proposed title change is incredibly euphemistic and doesn't distinctly describe the voter restriction efforts by Republicans being legislated in states like Georgia. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: We can follow the sources and still produce neutral article titles. Deb (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because we must follow wording, definitions and interpretations in majority of RS. Saying that, the title is too long. Perhaps Republican voting restriction campaign could work. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose:The original title seems very POV to me, and certainly not neutral. The sources cited are clearly biased and entirely one-sided on this topic, and I think the title also reflects that bias. We cannot overlook that Democrats are also proposing a number of changes to voting laws post-election. To be fair, what one side describes as "restricting" voter laws can just as easily be described as "strengthening" voter laws by the other side (and in fact is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loltardo (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources cited are the Associated Press, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times etc. In other words, it's described this way by literally the most reliable news sources. Not to mention the article includes dozens and dozens of local news sources that describe it similarly. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: How about retitling as Changes to voting laws following the 2020 presidential election or Voting law changes following the 2020 presidential election and expanding the article to cover proposed changes by Democrats as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loltardo (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think an article about proposed changes by Democrats is a great idea, but I don't think it would fit into this page. Reliable sources describe an effort by Republicans to make voting laws more restrictive, so this page is about that effort specifically. We also would just have a problem with length—this page is already 120k characters and there's more that can be added just about the Republican effort (e.g. additional states, a background section). But a separate page about bills proposed by Democrats (of which there are a lot!) would be a worthwhile pursuit and it could be referenced in this page. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: So far there is a strong consensus not to adopt the proposed title, but significant desire to make the title more concise (something I agree with). For convenience, here is a list of titles that have been proposed:
 * Republican Party franchise restriction proposals in 2020–21
 * Republican voting restriction efforts
 * Proposed voting restrictions following the 2020 United States presidential election
 * American voting law amendments following the 2020 presidential election
 * Republican voting restriction campaign
 * Changes to voting laws following the 2020 presidential election
 * Voting law changes following the 2020 presidential election
 * Republican voting restriction efforts following the 2020 presidential election (added from below)
 * Post 2020 election Republican voting restriction efforts (added from below)
 * In my opinion, the most WP:Precise title would (1) include mention of the Republican party, since the page specifically describes an effort by the Republican Party; (2) would describe the effort as reliable sources describe it—as "restrictive" or something similar—since that provides necessary information on what precisely is happening (it's not just that the GOP is trying to change voting laws in various ways, but that they are uniformly trying to make them more restrictive); and (3) would mention that it follows the 2020 presidential election, since reliable sources describe the effort as being prompted by the election. However, in the interest of conciseness, I'm not wed to the idea of absolutely having to include all three things in the title. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So for instance under the criteria I've laid out, proposed titles 3, 4, 6, and 7 fail to mention the Republican Party (criteria 1), which I think is far from optimal because the page very explicitly is about Republican proposals, not all proposals (there is, for instance, a Democratic Party effort to expand mail-in voting—but that effort is not detailed in this page). Proposed titles 4, 6, and 7 fail to call the effort "restrictive" or something similar (criteria 2), which I think leaves out a crucial piece of information about what is happening (as described by reliable sources): the GOP isn't just trying to change voting laws, they're trying to make them more restrictive. And proposed titles 1, 2, and 5 fail to mention that this follows the 2020 presidential election (criteria 3), which I think leaves out a central point that the effort was prompted by claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. None of the proposed titles include all three criteria but, in the interest of conciseness, I don't think we absolutely have to include all three. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe Republican voting restriction efforts following the 2020 presidential election? Satisfies all 3 of the last commenter's criteria. Still on the long side but at least it fits on one line on a standard (1280×800) laptop. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Post 2020 election Republican voting restriction efforts" is probably the shortest that meets all three but it's awkward as hell—blindlynx (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Or take out the "presidential" to get Republican voting restriction efforts following the 2020 election — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 13:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Current title is WP:POV, whether we tag Republican to this or not doesn't excuse the ridiculously bad title we're currently using. CaliIndie (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) —  is a confirmed sock puppet of.

A new idea
What about "Republican Restriction of Voting Laws after the 2020 Presidential Election?" It still captures the impression of the laws which is given in reliable sources, but I still think that the "attempts to restrict" language in the current version is a little bit too charged. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the title Republican voting restriction efforts following the 2020 presidential election, suggested by python coder  above, is preferable. It's a tad longer (though still about 20% shorter than the current title) but it captures that the page describes an effort and doesn't merely summarize how voting laws have changed. I mean, at present, most of the page describes proposals that haven't yet been adopted, so the proposed title would be a bit of a misnomer. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Republican efforts to make voting laws more restrictive following the 2020 presidential election → Republican voting restriction efforts following the 2020 presidential election – Given the input from my past requested move, I propose to simply shorten the current title. Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per previous discusion—blindlynx (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no!. This proposed title has the problem of being able to be read like "Efforts to restrict [Republican voting]...", which is kinda the opposite of intended meaning of "Republicans' [efforts to restrict voting]..."! Not sure how likely of a reading that would be, but nonetheless there's a possibility a reader could read it incorrectly. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election"? It's one (1) word longer than the proposed title above (3 words shorter than the current title, as opposed to 4 words shorter), but can't be misread. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: There's also the option of using "GOP" rather than "Republican" to shorten the title a bit. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Name change Replaced the word "Republican voting restriction efforts following the 2020 presidential election" with "GOP's voting restriction efforts following the 2020 presidential election" for concision and to reduce ambiguity per user's comments. Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice, I think that's the right way to go. But one point on grammar: I think the proper grammar is simply "GOP", i.e. "GOP voting restriction efforts following the 2020 presidential election". At least that's how GOP tends to be used in news sources. For the possessive I think you'd have to include "The", i.e. "The GOP's voting restriction efforts...". Jaydavidmartin (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think a better title is "Republican efforts to change voting laws following the 2020 election". It's far less loaded.-RomeW (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this was fairly well litigated in the prior move request discussion. To repeat the main points of my prior comments, I think being WP:Precise requires noting that it is restrictive—the GOP isn't simply making various changes, but is uniformly trying to make them more restrictive. Additionally, "restrictive" is simply how reliable sources describe it (see the list I compiled in the previous move request). Jaydavidmartin (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Uniformly" would be disputed; Raffensperger points out early voting in Georgia has been expanded and drop boxes are now required, which they weren't before the 2020 election. But you're right the overall effect seems more restrictive than 2020. -- Beland (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Name change Replaced "GOP's voting restriction efforts following the 2020 presidential election" with "Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election" to further reduce ambiguity. The page Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud starts with "Republican" so this article should start the same way as well. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I'll concur. We should maintain consistency across pages. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think "efforts" (plural) should be changed to "effort" (singular). When I first made this page I used "efforts" since the page describes actions taken in dozens of states. But reliable sources tend to describe this as an "effort" (singular); indeed, this page's lead (which I wrote—a bit of dissonance I suppose) calls it a "sweeping effort to make voting laws more restrictive..." Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Will change. Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Name change Replaced "Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election" with "Republican effort to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election" to fit with reliable sources per user comment. Hopefully we can find consensus from this without changing the name. Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the current name is accurate, others are ambiguous or detract from the meaning. "Efforts" is appropriate since there are several efforts is several states, not closely coordinated. Facts707 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Although "...after the 2020 elections" is fine. Facts707 (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Both titles fail IMPARTIAL. An article about efforts to change voting laws covering both Democratic and GOP efforts would be IMPARTIAL.  A title that implies these efforts are to "restrict" suggests they are only something negative.  While that may be generally true, the presumption of IMPARTIAL should be part of the article title.  Expanding the article to include efforts (and reactions) on both sides of the isle would help impartially quite a bit. Springee (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The current title is indeed gratuitously long. It would indeed be interesting to also have coverage of efforts to retain e.g. expanded vote-by-mail, but that may need to be a separate article, given the length. -- Beland (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support moving to Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election as proposed by as the most concise option that doesn't lose any of the present title's meaning. ―  Tartan357  Talk 22:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting Rights Act of Virginia
Virginia passed its own Votings Rights Act, the first state to do so. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Someone should make a section of this, maybe in the reactions section.


 * I created the page Voting Rights Act of Virginia and included a mention of it in the new "Countervailing Democratic effort" section of this page. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Media sources
(referenced in this article) are biased and not believable, The Washington Post, etc told us for 4 years that Trump colluded with Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton, A two year investigation with 13 Clinton donators found no evidence. In addition, the states cited are trying to secure the election, not restrict voting. I have to have ID to go to the doctor, open a bank account,  get a social security card, or go to a political convention. Id should be required to Vote. ==

My opinion should be as valuable as any hand picked source from the Media outlets cited, and it is offensive for Wikipedia to publish biased nonsense in this article such as "Republicans restricting voting rights". Republicans are trying to secure the vote against fraud. Federal law requires states to clean up their voter rolls, however, some states have been dragging their feet on purging the rolls of dead voters, people who move out of state, etc.

Further, The article doesn't mention that Stacy Abrams, a democrat from Georgia bragged about having 1.2 million absentee ballots. Some states like California, have instituted Ballot Harvesting, which is ripe for fraud. Unscrupulous people might throw out the opposing candidates ballots before they make it to the place of counting.

The idea should be to let the citizens decide who wins a free and fair election, not well connected politicians, ballot harvesters, or other miscreants that would tip the election in their favor.

In my opinion ballot harvesting and voting without ID, make a free and fair election impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:bd51:bde0:f9ce:71f3:3ec4:6bb8 (talk • contribs)


 * On Wikipedia your opinion is not, in fact, as valuable as reliable sources. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jaydavidmartin, that's funny--I was going to say the exact same thing. But next time, might as well revert this kind of forum posting; let the IP/editor enjoy themselves on social media. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I do agree the sources seem to be one sided and much of what is in these bills have been misreported due to the nature of the politicking that has been done with the accusations have been thrown around. If you have some reliable sources that do not cherry pick the bills or misrepresent what is within these bills, please post them. Wikipedia is not the location to debate politics, we are not here to become an authoritative source that has gone through every line of these legislative bills and prove if the media is misrepresenting it or not. Wikipedia is made up of sources cited and is only as good as its sources are and proper procedures need to be met in order to make changes around here. Wikipedia is ultimately a source created by human beings, and human beings are fallible and subject to their own opinions and biases. From my understanding, many things have changed on this site and many sources for things have been disproved as time goes on. Many sources that were once considered a neutral source or reputable have had their status changed, and even fewer that have lost said status have even regained it.

I understand being upset, if you want create an official account and help us find sources that can be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. If you have issues with what are considered reliable then please go about helping Wikipedia make those changes, as I do agree with your criticism on The Washington Post. there have been a non of outlets that presented active and current issues as if the facts were out there and we find out nothing really happened as it was portrayed. this is the nature of politics in general and we try here to not put bias in Wikipedia, but we are human and we make mistakes. Daggerfella (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This page is backed up by 228 references. It's main claims are derived from quite literally the most reliable news sources there are: the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time magazine, The Economist, Politico etc. The rest comes from dozens of local news sources. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Jaydavidmartin, in response to your points immediately above, "It's main claims are derived from quite literally the most reliable news sources there are: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time magazine," in this case, these sources are far from "quite literally the most reliable" fair, or objective news sources on this particular topic, especially given their demonstratively strong and uniform pro-administration, anti-Trump agenda (e.g. TIME magazine article bragging about subverting the democratic process to "save democracy," WaPo, NYT, and the LA Times notoriously anti-conservative stance). Using only these sources without even a semblance of balance and objectivity is extremely biased and partisan. This article should approach the topic with at least a token amount of fairness and objectivity, per Wikipedia standards.

Using news articles as sources are always going to come with bias. I'm not sure when it occurred but Wikipedia is now littered with news articles rather than objective, peer reviewed, fact based sources. A lot of the media sources used are opinion based political commentary. They should not be allowed. (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument is better made at WP:RSN. soibangla (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Disputing the neutrality of this article
I don't believe the wording, the title, or the general implications of this article's contents correspond to the neutral point of view policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Describing these as "restrictive" is entirely subjective. This article does not mention any members of the Democratic Party who questioned the election results. The lead section's final paragraph "In a June 2021 open letter, more than 100 scholars of democracy urged suspension of the Senate filibuster to enact the For the People Act which had passed the House, asserting, "our entire democracy is now at risk" due to Republican efforts of "radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election."". is irrelevant to the article's subject and furthermore suggests bias. Again, I would suggest at the very least that none of these items should be described as "restrictive". DeaconShotFire (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See footnotes #1 and #2. AP: "more than 100 bills in 28 states meant to restrict voting access," Politico: "considering dozens of restrictive bills." And there's plenty more. Are you arguing Republicans are acting to make voting easier for everyone? members of the Democratic Party who questioned the election results Who? soibangla (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The multiple sources used in the 'References' section meet Wikipedia reliablity standards under WP:RSP, and those sources more or less report that the voting laws proposed by Republicans are "restrictive" and an effort to limit voting. Just as a side note, once there is consensus or the discussion becomes dormant, please remove the banner. Phillip Samuel (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

added this POV tag on June 22, made one comment which was responded to, and has not followed up. Thus I propose this topic be closed and the tag removed. soibangla (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection to resolve disruptive editing
I have noticed IP vandalism and persistent disruptive editing by IP vandals. Regardless of your views on any issue, unilaterally deleting entire sections and changing the neutrality of articles without prior discussion and consensus in talk pages is inappropriate and unacceptable. The frequent reversions of disruptive edits seems to becoming tedious. To resolve this issue, I have requested semi-protection. Phillip Samuel (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021
Grammar: "they point to reports that the 2020 election was one of the most secure in American history to counter claims that election laws need to tightened" → "they point to reports that the 2020 election was one of the most secure in American history to counter claims that election laws need to  be  tightened"? Spidersouris (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you, good catch!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 12:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021
Image caption in Reactions section reads "cabrerites" Change "cabrerites" to "celebrities", matching the typo correction made in the text of that section last month. Boux22 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Bias
This whole article reeks of political bias.LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A bold statement, LoneWolf1992. Explain further if you please. Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * THe phrasing 'restrictive voting' is only used by the Democratic partisans and the left. They originate from opinion pieces in the NYT around November 13. As an example of the self-description of the laws by Republicans and right leaning press they are laws to prevent cheating and fraud, e.g.--https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-group-state-voting-rules 68.134.72.214 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's outright false. If you took the time to read the sources, they aren't "Democratic" or part of the "left". The sources are generally nonpartisan like The Associated Press, CBS News, etc. They are reliable mainstream sources. Also most sources cite facts and experts that agree that these so-called election reforms being done by the Republicans are generally restrictive in nature. Republicans are also justifying these laws with false claims of voter fraud spread by Trump and his supporters. The sources are also clear on this. These aren't mere opinions. As for Lonewolf1992, do you propose creating false balance by not challenging the unfounded concerns of Republican lawmakers and maybe even giving validity to discredited claims as to make the ongoing efforts towards voting legislation seem neutral? The editors here are using what the reliable sources say. If you disagree, that's your issue not that of the sources or content. SlackingViceroy (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The mainstream media is blatantly bias. LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 23:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * LoneWolf1992 Repeating your ealier claim does not make it correct. If you have concerns about the reliability and notability of certain sources, go to WP:RSP and start a source discussion to convince the community of your view. This talk page is not the appropriate place to throw empty accusations. Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a collection of links supporting the hypothesis that restricting mail-in balloting, checking ID's, cleaning up deceased person records, ending unsolicited ballot mailers sent to homes, and eliminating drive-in polling is equivalent to voter suppression. Without hearing the commentary that it is coming from one party or another, they all sound like salient checks to insure an election is accurate, fair, and eliminates bias.  The article's premise serves as an interpetation of a collective of bills.  There is no counterpoint.  "Republicans efforts to restrict voting..." Based on the logic, if we mail every household a ballot, don't verify that someone is a candidate to vote, allow voting by deceased persons, and making votes in haste are the hallmarks of a fair election.(talk) 17:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is biased by taking the liberal view point at face value.LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 4:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the underlying premise of these efforts, namely that there is widespread voting fraud, is demonstrably fraudulent. soibangla (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a hypothesis without any effort to investigate. Just because we say "there is voter fraud" or "there is no voter fraud" makes neither statement true without investigation. Voter fraud is not some new concept. And by the inherent nature, nor would those who commit voter fraud want it investigated. (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Other articles present results of investigations that reach those findings. These baseless allegations have been made by Republicans for decades because they know there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and the country is seeing demographic trends that do not favor Republicans, so their response is to disenfranchise those who might vote against them. As Paul Weyrich said in 1980, "our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." And now these efforts have become overtly brazen. They are desperately building a dam to stem the demographic tide that threatens to wash them away unless they broaden their appeal, which they have made abundantly clear they have no intention of doing. They are engaged in an epic fraud founded upon lies. soibangla (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is based on your opinion and is not a NPOV.We deal in facts on Wikipedia.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:8953:6FDA:FC5:3919 (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pot, meet kettle. "Opinion", as opposed to fact, being quite literally the only thing that has powered the unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unproven, and entirely fictitious claims of widespread voter fraud made by Trump and his anti-democratic ilk - with the majority of any actual voter fraud having taken place being done and encouraged by Republicans, not Democrats - these concerns may be entirely disregarded. 69.146.79.250 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

How this page can be made more neutral
Hello I have looked at this page more closely and have found some inconsistencies with the title and some of the contents of the article. But first I would suggest we revamp this article to include ALL election bills proposed by both Democrats and Republican regardless if the bills are viewed as restrictive or not. Some sections of the article do talk about some bills proposed by Democrats such as the Connecticut page which mentions them and even some Republicans in Kentucky proposing election related bills that actually EXPANDED voting access. If we are using information like that while under this title than the title must be changed. The title must also be changed because some users can reasonably infer that bias is being used while writing the article if a title like this is used. I propose that we change the title to "Voting Law changes following the 2020 United States Elections" more so it would complement voting law changes proposed by both parties and we can still mention that many Republican controlled legislatures are restricting voting access while Democrats are expanding it because it seems to be more factual than a bias to me. But we must add information on who is proposing laws to expand voting while adding potentially more information about the restrictions of voting. Also the title MUST be changed because some of the information does not go with it I don't really understand having a title that has information that has little or no relation to the subject. I would propose an RFC but I am not sure of the process to do that but I think that would be the best option for this. Thank you. Wollers14 (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested in an RfC regarding the title of this article and is still relatively new to Wikipedia, I recomend going to the Teahouse to learn more. DN (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Title change
Glancing at this talk page clearly there is a lot of debate around NPOV especially regarding the title. Regardless of if "restrict voting" is a fair term to call these measures, I think changing the title to Republican voting laws in the aftermath of the 2020 election would cause less people to voice claims of NPOV and is itself less wordy than the current title. Thoughts? 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that titles such as "Republican efforts to improve election security following the 2020 presidential election" and "Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election" are both POV from opposite ends of the spectrum. What about "Republican efforts to amend voting laws following the 2020 presidential election?" That carries no pro-Republican or pro-Democratic message and just states the situation objectively. The facts of the article certainly will point to the Republicans' efforts to suppress the vote of anyone unlikely to vote Republican, but the article's title shouldn't give the article's contents away.OrdinaryAverageTy (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think the problem is a title change. Given the views of some serious commentators and historians that the country is witnessing a stark attack on democracy itself, there needs to be a new article discussing whether it is hyperbole or that it is not being taken seriously enough. Surely they both can’t be true, yet some portray it as partisan, while others who used to wholeheartedly support the Republican Party fully agree about the urgency of the situation. Wikipedia needs to shed some light on this, yet I only see articles that talk about pieces of that whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to preach to the choir here but since our focus is to pay attention to what most higher quality reliable sources say and work towards consensus during valid disagreements, I feel this would be premature. Unless someone here also feels it is a POV issue (which should be taken seriously) it's not our job to pre-empt other editors from simply debating. Debate is good, and we want that. I looked at the previous threads and most of the arguments for changing the title seemed to fall flat IMO. There needs to be a clear presentation of the POV issue and hopefully some acceptable solutions along with that. Editors make claims every day, but without doing so in a productive manner with cites and or policies etc. to back up their arguments, the point is fairly moot. For now, I think it's safe to stay focused on improving the lead and the body and wait to cross the POV bridge until someone points out exactly why it's not neutral. Just my two cents. DN (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention, most of those debates are from around June of 2021. DN (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing info on Indiana voting restrictions by republicans
I'm not too familiar with Indiana news organizations, so I'll refer to other editors that are more familiar with them in deciding which sources are best. Here are some I found right off the bat. IndyStar AP effingham daily news thestatehousefile.com wfyi...DN (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Repeated links and see also
There were a number of duplicate links, especially with all the different state sections for laws and bills. There were also see also links that were already linked above. I probably missed some so I will probably go back and see. Malerooster (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)