Talk:Voter suppression in the United States/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Voter suppression in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100115215953/http://www.dallasnews.com:80/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-voterid_11tex.ART0.State.Edition2.4ac6919.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-voterid_11tex.ART0.State.Edition2.4ac6919.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724050001/http://www.reformelections.org/feature.asp?menuid= to http://www.reformelections.org/feature.asp?menuid=
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080912005439/http://www.americanchronicle.com:80/articles/16105 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/16105

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

POV tags from 2014 citing recentism removed
POV tags are not meant to be a permanent fixture for any article on Wikipedia. There has been no further discussion, nor did there seem to be a WP:Consensus in favor of the tag in the first place, according to it's relative TP section | NPOV: More balanced examples or address the issue? This tag is about 3 years old, so there has been more than enough time for the editor(s) that placed this tag to have addressed any issues they saw as POV. The tag also cites WP:RECENTISM, but due to the extensive history of this term, I believe it has passed the ten year test WP:10YT. If any editor still feels that certain aspects of this article are still POV, please address them here, or better yet, fix them, instead of just putting the tag back on. That is just lazy editing IMO, and could also be construed as using the POV tag inappropriately as a sort of "badge of shame".

See WP:ACHIEVE NPOV, "As a general rule, | do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."DN (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have any examples? Nobody seems to be able to find any examples of Democrats suppressing the vote? Do such examples exist, or are Republicans the only ones suppressing the vote? Nobody wants to update this section.Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are examples already in the article of "Dem" voter suppression. See Jim Crow laws. Of course, things have changed since then. DN (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

POV tags again
SEE. this page reads like a progressive hate screed and much of it's "findings" have been debunked on Politifact and Snopes.com)". I have removed this tag because being WP:TRIGGERED is not reason enough to cite a POV claim. If you have citations that dispute anything in this article, I kindly request you share them with the rest of us before using tags again. DN (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Coretta Scott King on Jeff Sessions
On 2019-05-17 user:2a02:c7d:69c0:2400:e0b2:4ae8:f063:49e7 deleted a comment that read, "(Sessions was accused by Coretta Scott King in 1986 of trying to suppress the black vote.)<nowiki? This was deleted, claiming, "‎Texas: this should not be here."

I'm willing to believe it might be better someplace else in the article, but I believe it belongs in this article. Moreover, the previous sentence says, "Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however, the DOJ has expressed support for Texas's ID law." It therefore seems reasonable to me that this comment belongs there. Accordingly, I've reverted this deletion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you just reverted my addition to Voter suppression in the United States in which I quoted an 1824 South Carolina bill asserting the importance, over all other laws, constitutions, and treaties, for the government to "control and regulate" political causes; your edit comment said that this was "not needed" in the article, which currently does not have any material on pre-Civil-War voter suppression.This certainly wasn't meant to be thorough coverage of pre-Civil-War voter suppression in the United States, just a start. But an official government declaration about control of political activities and related subordination of "their" colored population seems pertinent and reliably-sourced, as the WP:P&G jargon goes.I'm not terribly thrilled at the idea of throwing the work away but maybe you could give me an idea of what sort of pre-Civil-War coverage of the topic is needed, that it might be combined with? -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 19:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, amending my above comment, I'm noticing that I missed the "1838 Gallatin County Election Day Battle" subsection. The South Carolina thing seemed like a better contrast to voting rights being granted post-Civil-War, but would you prefer it be added next to the existing pre-Civil-War content about Mormons? -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was impressed by the quality of your writing and very much on the fence about reverting. I am not 100% sure that my viewpoint is correct. Probably the best place for this discussion is at the talk page. Could you copy your message there? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing the discussion here! To me, the South Carolina info would only be relevant if it restricted voting rights over and above a total ban on Black voting. As far as I know, South Carolina didn't allow Black people, free or enslaved, to vote until after the Civil War. I could be wrong!In general, I would support including information here about how the various states handled the voting rights of free Black people. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yeah, I'm not certain that there were explicit bans on black voting, though it'd be good to find out; my impression has always been that the methods relied on in early America (and the rest of history, really) were state terrorism and carve-outs to rights supposedly given to white people to prevent them from voting the "wrong way" or using the franchise to agitate for the wrong things.I believe, for example, that in many slave states in the early nineteenth century publishing or circulating abolitionist pamphlets was a capital crime in statute... so that's how far "freedom of speech" went with the Founding Fathers.Even if South Carolina did explicitly prohibit free blacks from voting, though, isn't the quote I'd added still quite relevant? That quote gives a good example of the mens rea written out plainly for all to see, as they were willing to do back then; whether or not the pretext for forcing a voter to recite the Constitution from memory or guess the number of jelly beans in a jar is to supposedly ensure a competent electorate, that quote is white supremacy literally laying out how racial subordination of blacks supersedes any other rationale for any government activity, and justifies government to  that might undo the subordination.(So, to be clear, as a start for an article section covering pre-Civil-War voter suppression, I was expecting that this would be an example of the intent—of which there are many more examples too because white Americans said this kind of stuff, in writing, all the time—which would tie together sourced examples of implemented voter suppression policies and activities, of both free blacks and abolitionist whites, or even whites in favor of not-harsh-enough slavery: from browsing Ira Berlin, I believe perceptions of just how draconian American slavery needed to be intensified from the turn of the century onward. And I've never looked into it but I'd expect some Gangs of New York type anti-immigrant voter suppression to show up against whites too.) -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 23:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The time jump is going to be a problem, though, between 1824 and whenever South Carolina's reconstruction-era black codes and voting restrictions kick in.Getting back to the antebellum period, I am all for including more info about voter suppression. There's some good starter info at Voting rights in the United States, especially the sections on African Americans and poor whites and Voting_rights_in_the_United_States. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead paragraph: synthesis from editorial sources
The following statement, which appears in the lead paragraph of this article, appears to me to be a synthesis derived from the views of two contributing editors whose work appeared in The Guardian and The Atlantic, the two cited references that appear as footnotes:

That the sources are purely opinion pieces is evidenced (for the Guardian article) by the following disclaimer appearing in a linked page, "Unless otherwise stated, all statements and materials reflect the views of the individual contributors and not those of theguardian.org, the Schumann Media Center, Craig Newmark Philanthropies or the Guardian." The editors of Atlantic website are a bit more stealthy, calling their opinion pieces "Ideas" instead. No explicit disclaimer could be found for this piece, but an astute reader will clearly see that it is an opinion piece as well.

Since the statement really does not belong in the lead, and since it reflects only the opinion of the respective contributors, I will be removing it from the article. Johnnie Bob (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Johnnie Bob That's not how Wikipedia works. You should be working for a consensus, not just making up your own rules because you WP:JDL DN (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:Undue tags from 2019
Does anyone still finds these tags necessary? If not they should be removed as it has been (checks watch) 2 YEARS...Please list all the issues that need corrected so they can be addressed and discussed on the talk page. I will be checking back in a week to see if any progress has been made. DN (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

POV editing
I'm reverting your deletion of the citation to Forbes:



Couldn't you similarly say that every op ed piece in The New York Times is an "unreliable blog"?

It would be better if that citation were to an article in a reputable, refereed academic journal with good citations. However, those citations are often harder to find, and I don't think they are necessary unless something is contested. In this case, your deletion of that citation triggered user:AnomieBOT to tag those places with. Deleting citations like that seems to me to be an attack on the integrity of Wikipedia.

... AND Forbes is NOT Breitbart. I didn't read every word of that article, but it seems like a reasonable historical review published in a reputable journal by someone who seems to be qualified to know that subject fairly well. What I read is consistent with what I know about the subject. ??? DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Your question is answered at WP:RSP - NYT blogs are green-rated WP:NEWSBLOGs, but Forbes contributor blogs are specifically called out as Generally Unreliable. There's even a link, WP:FORBESCON.
 * Forbes contributor blogs are not the magazine. There is sufficient confusion on this point that they are distinguished from magazine content. For magazine content, it should be "from the print edition", a staff writer, or old content before Forbes started putting up any old blog posts.
 * A lot of Forbes blog content is great! A lot is trash. It's bad enough that the whole area is considered "Generally Unreliable".
 * If you honestly thought the two examples were comparable, I urge you to read the discussions that went into the WP:RSP descriptions.
 * It may well be a pretty nice blog post! But it's specifically Generally Unreliable, unless the author specifically passes the subject-matter expert provisions of WP:SPS. That's why I removed the cite but not the content. It's absolutely a matter for discussion, but I think you've greatly overestimated the general reliability of Forbes contributor blogs.
 * WP:V does not say "use something that looks pretty good", it says to use Reliable Sources - David Gerard (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, if you've been here since 2011, you should know what "POV editing" is. I can't think how removing blog posts as sourcing is "POV editing" - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I support David Gerard's actions and reasoning here. The source is unreliable, but the content looks verifiable; it makes sense to keep the content with cn tags. I briefly looked into the Forbes author, and she does not appear to meet the exception noted in WP:SPS. DavidMCEddy, I'd recommend self-reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Republicans have passed or attempted to pass many laws that have been seen asrestricting?
Please help me understand your change of wording from "Republicans have passed or attempted to pass many laws restricting voter access" to "Republicans have passed or attempted to pass many laws that have been seen asrestricting voter access":


 * Is there any credible evidence to support the Republican claims that these measures are needed to ensure the integrity of our elections?

The available evidence I can find supports the claim that Republicans understood at least by 1980 that, "our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." (See Paul Weyrich.) Since then, Republicans have repeatedly been hauled into court by Democrats and ordered to cease voter suppression activities ... until the Supreme Court shifted so far to the Right that such activities are now legal, as discussed in this article.

The best single, seemingly balanced analysis of this issue I know is Judge Julie Robinson's "Findings of fact and conclusions of law" in Fish v. Kobach.

If you know honest evidence supporting the Republican efforts in this area, I want to know. From what I've seen the rules of evidence in the court of public opinion is whatever will maximize the social status of those who control the money for the media. The rules of evidence in the US courts are often more balanced.

I've reverted your change to more simple and direct language that seems supported by the available evidence. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

New Article for Voter suppression in Georgia??
I saw that this article has many sources related to historical and contemporary instances of voter suppression, so I thought it would be valuable to create a page on voter suppression in Georgia specifically. The parent article might need to be updated because of the new information that has risen on the topic, and it might be biased toward a more leftist perspective, so editing a few of those places might be a good place for me to start working. In this new article I am creating, it would follow a similar structure to its parent article of voter suppression in the United States. I would like to have categories explaining the historical context of voting rights in Georgia considering it was part of the Jim Crow south as well as the contemporary issues of voter suppression with requiring IDs and not allowing people to give voters food and water while they wait in long lines. I would like to highlight the struggles of various communities—Black voters, rural voters, non-English speaking voters, previously incarcerated voters, immigrant voters, etc. and for aforementioned information that is lacking in this article, I might add these topics here. I would also like to include how COVID-19 impacted voting in the past presidential election and the legislation that stems from that in my article. I have more information on my talk page, so check that out if you would like! I am very receptive to feedback since this will be my first article! :) Dpalmer3157 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Historical and post 2020
Given the many reports of new major restrictions on voting procedures, and the substantive evidence contradicting the official rationales given for those changes, I think the lede to this article should retain the previous reference to attacks on voting rights by Donald Trump and Republicans since the 2020 elections. I support your recommendation about including its use for racial discrimination in the past. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Voter suppression to some extent has been done multiple times throughout the history of the United States. The recent voter suppression being done by the Republican Party is significant, but not more than voter suppression in the Jim Crow era which at present is barely even mentioned in the lede. There's no reason why the most recent instances of voter suppression should take up half the lede; it would be recentism to do so. Maybe the lede could be expanded to include the historical examples as well as the most recent one, weighed proportionally. PBZE (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

On 2021-12-26 User:23.240.160.134 twice deleted credible reports of actions by President Trump's Postmaster General Louis DeJoy that allegedly degraded the quality of service in the US Postal Service in an effort to reduce the number of mail-in ballots processed during the 2020 election. The first deletion was for "Unclear relevance". After that was reverted, User:23.240.160.134 deleted the passage again, saying, "Not entirely sure what the reason was to defend this. Common Dreams and the Nation are far from objective sources. They simply aren’t."

Both Common Dreams and The Nation regularly publish material by well-respected authors. As of 2021-12-26 I cannot find information in the article on either publication that raises questions about the credibility of what they publish.

Accordingly, I'm reverting the second deletion by User:23.240.160.134, per Template:Uw-whitewashing. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Iowa and Mississippi
The edits by DavidMCEddy and his subsequent defense are not based in policy. Common Dreams and The Nation are both described in their own pages as progressive and not described as reliable news sources. DavidMCEddy’s description of them as “publishing highly respected authors” is based in his personal opinion. If he wants to find reliable sources suggesting this, he can.

Additionally, he reverted a change to the Mississippi section, where the entire section consisted of one poll worker posting ambiguously racist content on private social media. How this in anyway could amount to “voter suppression” (it technically would only increase voter turnout if it accomplished anything at all, which is highly doubtful) is not described, which I made clear in my edit description. He has claimed that both edits were filed under “unclear relevance.” This is patently untrue, as it had been three different edits, only one of which had that in the edit description. Check page history. 23.240.160.134 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC) I see you are new to Wikipedia. How familiar are you with WP:GUIDELINES? More to the point, why would it matter if the sources described themselves as reliable? If i say I'm a millionaire, unfortunately that does not make it so. DN (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jvaldez0341.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rseplow. Peer reviewers: Zahussen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tic Tag Tow. Peer reviewers: RadRemi, Lilysloan1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Southern Strategy (listed under see also)
Regarding multiple diffs, the last one here, I have looked through most of the article but I did not see which citations from RS explicitly state, support and provide evidence that the Southern Strategy falls under the purview of Voter Suppression or vice versa. Could we list those citations here to discuss, please? DN (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Please consider the following from Southern Strategy:

From 1890 to 1908, the white Democratic legislatures in every Southern state enacted new constitutions or amendments with provisions to disenfranchise most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites. Provisions required payment of poll taxes, complicated residency, literacy tests and other requirements which were subjectively applied against blacks. As blacks lost their vote, the Republican Party lost its ability to effectively compete in the South. There was a dramatic drop in voter turnout as these measures took effect, a decline in African American participation that was enforced for decades in all Southern states.


 * That section doesn't use the phrase "Voter suppression", but what it describes is clearly voter suppression. Can there be any doubt?


 * I'm reverting Springee's deletion of the "See also" referral to "Southern Strategy". DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is really a stretch. Also, the "southern strategy" is described as a Nixon era appeal to closeted racism.  Content from pre-WW1 is not part of the southern strategy.  Southern voter suppression in the late 1800s certainly is a true thing but it's not part of the southern strategy.  This is especially true since the southern strategy is viewed as an underhanded strategy used by the GOP while the material you quoted was something done by pre-WW1 southern Democrats. DN was right to suggest removal. Springee (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How can "new constitutions or amendments with provisions to disenfranchise most blacks" NOT be "voter suppression"? How is that "a stretch"?  DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't part of the southern strategy. That is the pre-southern strategy history included in the article (why, I'm not certain).  The opening sentence of the article sums it up, "In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party"  Nothing in there is voter suppression.  Springee (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At this time I would agree with Springee. See the opening sentence on Voter suppression..."Voter suppression in the United States is various legal and illegal efforts to prevent eligible voters from exercising their right to vote."...Now see the opening sentence at SS..."In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans."...Without reliable sources that clearly connect A to B, what we end up with looks like WP:SYNTH, no offense. There's nothing really connecting VS to SS other than that they both had links to racism. If you find some reliable sources in the future that say otherwise please feel free to share them with us here or at SS. Thanks. DN (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Accepted. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Current Issues
This section is for editors that have placed tags to address the specific issues identified below. Let's focus on AGF and try to work together to build consensus.


 * This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. (April 2022)


 * This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. (November 2021)


 * This article needs to be updated. (November 2019)


 * This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (August 2019)


 * This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (November 2019) DN (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks and no editors seem to have come to state their cases...Odd. I suppose I can make some fixes on my own but it's hard to address the issues if I don't know what they are. DN (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I'll start in the lead. This content seems like it may be part of why the "slanted towards recent events" tag is on. I will remove it and see that stays in the body where it belongs. "Following the loss of Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential elections, Republicans have passed or attempted to pass many laws restricting voter access, and have received condemnation and accusations of engaging in voter suppression." DN (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Made more progress today, adding women's suffrage. Still quite a bit of cleaning up to do and I'm still certainly open to suggestions (and help). Thanks. DN (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Merrill v. Milligan seems of some certain WEIGHT for reasons including its wiki article. I will try to cross reference with the Gerrymandering in the United States article. DN (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Gerrymandering and the Electoral college
Voter suppression may also be considered a form of political strategy. DN (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Citations leaning for inclusion (not just for gerrymandering and electoral college)... 1 MIT.EDU 2 Brennan Center 3 A Keyssar 4 Alexander Keyssar 5 electoral-college-penalizes-high-turnout...DN (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Gerrymandering as a form of voter suppression
With regard to my revert here, I would recommend taking a look at the citations above. DN (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Shelby County V. Holder
Voting Rights Act

Combating voter suppression & possible solutions
ACLU, LWV, NAACP, SPLC...DN (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

California's Voters Choice Act
I came here looking for info about California's Voters Choice Act:

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voters-choice-act

It seems unmentioned on wikipedia. Mathiastck (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Just from the sound of it, I'm not sure why you you would look for it in this particular article ie "Voter suppression in the United States", but I don't know much about it. Maybe try searching California voter laws etc? DN (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's the exact opposite of voter suppression? It's covered at . –– FormalDude  (talk)  23:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)