User:Rseplow/sandbox

Bibliography:
= Article Evaluation: = Censorship in Mexico:


 * There is a lot of bad grammar choices.


 * The section seems to have a lot of quotes that make the article seem very one sided.
 * There is an extreme bias in the sources towards articles about deaths of reporters, and not many other types of sources.

The whole article deals with threats to journalists, but no historical details, or any other type of suppression of free speech.


 * There is nothing on the talk page.

List of potential articles:
Voter Suppression in the United States:


 * Things to Improve:
 * Add in more information to certain subsections i.e. disinformation about voting
 * Add in more about social media attempts to increase disinformation.
 * Add in more historical examples
 * Add to the section on felon disenfranchisement:
 * In the 2018 midterm elections, Florida voters passed a ballot measure that amended the state's constitution. It will restore the rights of over 1.6 million Floridian ex-cons to vote, automatically restoring their rights after they complete their sentences." Now, there are still 2 states in which felons are permanently banned from voting, Iowa and Kentucky."

What Currently Exists in the Page: Limitations on early voting
In North Carolina, Republican lawmakers requested data on various voting practices, broken down by race. They then passed laws that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. Among other things, they cut back on early voting. Later, the North Carolina GOP sent out a press release celebrating the decline in early voting by African Americans. Early voting is important for voters who do not have flexible working hours and cannot take time off on a weekday to vote.

My new version of the section: Limitations on Early and Absentee Voting
NB: I am removing the line about the GOP celebrating because of the decrease of African American early voter. The press release simply states the rise and fall in percentages of white and African American voters and therefore portraying it as a celebration is an extremely biased reading of the facts.

Early voting is important for voters who do not have flexible working hours and cannot take time off on a weekday to vote. The costs associated with voting include potential lost wages, transit fare and the cost of childcare.These factors inherently affect minorities and the poor more because of deep-rooted inequalities: for example, minority voters are likely to work salaried jobs and thus less likely to have paid time off to get to the voting polls, and they are also less likely to own a car. There are currently 23 states that do not have early voting available to all qualified voters. Of the those, 20 states require an excuse to mail an absentee ballot to voters. Since 2010, seven states have implemented additional restrictions on early voting.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice's 2013 Report Early Voting: What Works, there are many benefits to early voting including shorter lines on election day, more access to voting and increased satisfaction of voters. In 2012 32% of voters voted early.

In a 2014 article in Political Research Quarterly by Micheal C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith "Race, Party, and the Consequences of Restricting Early Voting in Florida in the 2012 General Election", they show that a 2011 cutting the early voting period in Florida from 14 to 8 days and cutting the final Sunday of early voting caused a large drop in 2012 in early voting for registered Democrats, those without party ID and racial and ethnic minorities. It also states that "voters who cast ballots on the last Sunday in 2008 were disproportionately unlikely to cast a valid ballot in 2012." This policy affected those who were already less likely to vote, in this way it was effective in controlling information through controlling who voted.

Cut backs in early voting disproportionately affect African American voters who vote early in higher proportions than white voters. In 2012, in Ohio, African American voters voted early at more than 2 times the rate of white voters. In North Carolina, Republican lawmakers requested data on various voting practices, broken down by race. They then passed laws that restricted voting and registration many ways that disproportionally affected African Americans, including cutting back on early voting. In a 2016 appellate court case, the 4th US District Court of Appeals struck down a law that removed the first week of early voting. They wrote that the GOP used the data they gathered to remove the first week of early voting because more African American voters voted during that week, and African American voters were more likely to vote for Democrats. Between 2008 and 2012 in North Carolina, 70% of African American voters voted early. After cuts to early voting, African American turnout in early voting was down by 8.7% (around 66,000 votes) in North Carolina.

What exists now:
On June 25, 2013, the US Supreme Court declared, by a 5–4 decision, in Shelby v. Holder that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional. Previously, states with a history of proven voter discrimination were required to obtain preclearance from a federal court before making changes to their voting laws. "Section 4 of the Act contained the formula for determining which states or political subdivisions were covered by Section 5. The majority opinion argued that the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal oversight or preclearance had not been updated to reflect current social conditions, including a decline in institutionalized discrimination and direct voter suppression. Since the Court's decision, several states passed new voter ID laws and other restrictions on registration and on voting.

My new version of the section:
On June 25, 2013, the US Supreme Court declared, by a 5–4 decision, in Shelby v. Holder that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional. Previously, states with a history of proven voter discrimination were required to obtain preclearance from a federal court before making changes to their voting laws. Section 4 of the Act contained the formula for determining which states or political subdivisions were covered by Section 5. The majority opinion argued that the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal oversight or preclearance had not been updated to reflect current social conditions, including a decline in institutionalized discrimination and direct voter suppression. The states previously covered under section 5 were: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, as well as parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota. By ruling these restrictions to be unconstitutional, it rendered section 5 unenforceable under the current formula.

Since the Court's decision, several states passed new voter ID laws and other restrictions on registration and on voting. Within 24 hours of the Shelby v. Holder verdict, Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, three states that were previously covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 began to implement or stated intentions to implement strict photo ID policies. Texas' proposed policy required a voter to show their passport, driver license or other form of photo ID before they could cast their ballot. However, this policy was found to be discriminatory to black and hispanic voters, and so it was adapted to include the provision for voters to be able to cast a ballot if they signed an affidavit explaining why they could not obtain a form of photo ID and showed an alternate form of ID, such as a utility bill. According to a 2018 Brennan Center report, states that previously needed preclearance have purged voters off their rolls at a much higher rate than other states. Additionally, according to another Brennan Center 2018 Poll on the State of Voting, most of the states that were previously covered by Section 5, have recently enacted laws or other measures that restricted voting rights.

Edward K. Olds argues in his December 2017 Columbia Law Review Article "More than "Rarely Used": A Post-"Shelby" Judicial Standard For Section 3 Preclearance" that in the wake of the defeat of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was struck down by Shelby v. Holder, Section 3 could take on a very similar role. Section 3 states that a federal judge can require a jurisdiction to seek pre approval for future policies if it found to be in violation of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments, however, states that this is unlikely in the current political climate.

In the 2015 Phylon Article "A Response to Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder: Energizing, Educating and Empowering Voters," June Gary Hopps and Dorcas Davis Bowles argue that by eliminating section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby v. Holder decreased the participation of minorities and that "The participation of these groups is not only important because of the implications for ensuring civil rights, but also for developing social capital within neighborhoods, and increasing positive inter-group relations." This article also states that combined with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, there is an extreme potential for erosion to civil rights gains, that could "further alienate disenfranchised people."

In the Berkeley Journal of African-American Law & Policy article "The Blinding Color of Race: Elections and Democracy in the Post-Shelby County Era" Sahar Aziz that "the majority in Shelby County lost sight of the objective of the VRA. This historic law was not merely about preventing the most extreme levels or forms of discrimination, but rather having in place a regime that is preventative in nature so as to ensure discrimination continues to decreased eliminate the possibility of returning to a period of systemic disenfranchisement."

Desmond S. King and Rogers M. Smith argue in their Du Bois Review article "The Last Stand?" that although Shelby v. Holder represents a barrier to African-American political participation, efforts to disproportionately decrease the political power of minorities will long-term, fail to prevent increases in political gains for minorities. However, "they threaten to foster severe conflicts in American politics for years to come."

Georgia Article:


 * https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-suppression-efforts-are-targeting-minorities-journalist-says
 * Georgia has purged about 10 percent of its voting roll (1.5 million people from 2012-2016)
 * Closed 214 polling places in recent years
 * "exact match system" - name needs to be exactly the same as on all government paperwork. Disenfranchisement based on typo.
 * Blocked 53,000 voter registrations in the state.
 * 70% African Americans, 80% people of color.

Limitations on Absentee Voting - maybe combine with early voting to make one section:

 * Relevant Articles:
 * https://www.npr.org/2018/09/23/649524683/california-launches-new-effort-to-fight-election-disinformation
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/2018-midterms-and-specter-voter-suppression/573826/

Voter ID laws in the United States:


 * Things to Improve
 * Add more to the section on international comparisons
 * Write more about the effects of Shelby v. Holder
 * I'm sure post midterm elections there will be more to write here
 * Adding to Laws by states section:
 * In Alabama add a citation to the last line. Then, add the sentence "voters are also able to vote with a provisional ballot as long as they return with a photo ID in the next 4 days."
 * Add to the last paragraph of the first section:
 * "In the 2016 Election there were only 4 confirmed cases of voter fraud, nationally."
 * Relevant Articles"
 * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/missouri-judge-clarifies-voter-id-ruling-ahead-of-key-senate-contest
 * https://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws