Talk:Voter suppression in the United States

Questions about neutral point of view and discussing Electoral integrity or other justifications for modern day voter suppression

In the past few decades, proponents of many restrictive voting laws have often justified them by pointing to concerns over Electoral integrity. I believe that this fact should be mentioned in this article, albeit briefly, as a part of the discussion of concerns about voter suppression in the 21st century (and indeed, if such a defense was used in the past as well, I believe we should include it). Xam2580 (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Xam2580... Please use the talk page to attempt to gain a consensus for your desired change instead of just reverting. See 1st attempt and more recent 2nd attempt...Cheers. DN (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say the same to you. Please see the talk page I created immediately after you suggested it.

I am happy to discuss this issue, or, perhaps you could simply fold my edit into the broader article. I see no consensus about being prevented from briefly mentioning the justifications for these voter suppression laws, and I think it is important to discuss both sides of an issue whenever possible and reasonable to do so Xam2580 (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify, I meant the article talk page here. I'm not sure which talk page you "created". I checked the page history and this is the first edit I've seen of yours here (article talk page). DN (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I created this section of the talk page: "Questions about neutral point of view and discussing Electoral integrity or other justifications for modern day voter suppression"

I am happy to discuss this edit here or elsewhere. I personally think that including the views of those proposing these bills is important to maintain neutrality. I am open to suggestions for better wording or more appropriate locations. In fact, I suggest an entire section discussing the reasoning behind voter suppression, whether it be racism, maintaining democratic majorities, concerns over electoral integrity, or anything else. Xam2580 (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the "section" above. My main contention was that you had changed the word "restriction" to "alter". I see your most recent edit here, and it omits that change so it's much less of an issue for me. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

All good. I simply object to the broad use of reversions for generally decent edits. Xam2580 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

On a side note, many of the 361 bills cited by the brennan center are 1 never enacted and 2 represent minor changes to voting procedure. As such, I prefer the more neutral word "alter" rather than "restrict". Or perhaps we can qualify the word "restrict" by adding a phrase like "which the center/proponents say restrict..." Xam2580 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So 360+ voter restriction bills since 2013's Shelby V Holder comes out to an average of about 3 bills a month every month for the last 10 years despite their unpopularity and chances of passing. After all, you can't legalize voter suppression without legislation, can you? Regardless of how many bills have passed, the body of the article goes into details which give this aspect of the article WP:WEIGHT, hence it's prominence in the lead. If you would like to put together an WP:RfC to see if there is a consensus for adding a qualifier for the term "restrictive", I would not object. However, calling them "minor changes" instead, and or, omitting that term, for whatever reason, seems to constitute an NPOV violation, IMO. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Citizen Nation

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Silverlionoftruth (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GreenBubble223 (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Original research?

If anecdotes that might illustrate voter suppression are used in the article, the attached citations should WP:RS that the story told in the anecdote is voter suppression (using that word). Otherwise, it's WP:OR. That's a thesis, and I'm not sure other editors here would agree with that. Here's an example from the article. There's a section called "Address confirmation cards" and it has this content, and only this content, in it. "In 2019, presiding circuit court Judge Paul V. Malloy of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, removed 234,000 voters from the statewide rolls, ruling that state law compelled him to do so for people flagged as 'having potentially moved' and who didn't respond within 30 days of a mailing sent to the address on file." There's one citation. The citation doesn't include the phrase "voter suppression". My thesis would then suggest that including that section/anecdote in this article is WP:OR. Novellasyes (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The section on Voter suppression in the United States#"Use it or lose it" is another example. There's an anecdote about something that was done by election officials in a Tennessee county in 2020. There are two citations. Neither citation uses the phrase "voter suppression" to describe the list-cleaning method the Tennessee county used. One of the citations is to an opinion piece from someone who is highly critical of the particular method the Tennessee county used, saying that there is a better technique they could have used. But this critic doesn't say that what happened was voter suppression. So I would say that sticking a section into this article using this as an instance or type of voter suppression is WP:OR. Evidently, the editor who put that section in here thinks it is voter suppression, but we have to rely on WP:RS. Novellasyes (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I reject the notion that we can, or should, disregard sources just because then don't use one particular phrase. It would be better to find a source that more directly indicates this is intentional voter suppression, such as this NPR story

WIKLER: The thing we know is that these kinds of purges disproportionately affect young people and people of color. And those are folks who are more likely to be Democrats. So this is a purge that is motivated by partisan interests. It's intended to knock more Democrats than Republicans off the rolls. And it's a cause for us to organize to make sure those folks get reregistered and vote.

Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It goes without saying that if you can find one or ideally more than one WP:RS that indicates that what happened in the anecdote is notably identified and talked about as voter suppression, then it no longer falls into the WP:OR category. The quote from Ben Wikler, who according to that NPR link was the chairman of the Democratic Party when he made these comments, is not an WP:RS. It is a quote from a partisan actor in a WP:RS. He also doesn't say that what happened was voter suppression. Again, I understand that people editing this page may strongly feel that these anecdotes are clear illustrations and examples of voter suppression but generally at WP you need to find WP:RS that say that in their voice, not in the voice of someone they are quoting.Novellasyes (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the "Use it or lose it" section, the first source cited is from the American Bar Association which states

With the 2020 elections looming, there are mounting concerns about the techniques some states may use to try to tailor the electorate and achieve their preferred political outcomes. One such technique is purging voters from the rolls for flimsy reasons. State election officials do, of course, have the obligation to try to keep voter registration records up to date by canceling registrations of people who have died, are imprisoned, have moved to another state, or become legally incompetent. But a minority of states go further and engage in a practice that ought to be seen as glaringly unconstitutional—purging people from the rolls solely because they have skipped voting in several consecutive elections and they have not responded to a letter asking them to confirm where they live.

Jc3s5h (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece published on the ABA website. It's not in the voice of the ABA. Even if it were in the voice of the ABA, is the ABA considered a WP:RS for the purposes of deciding whether something is voter suppression? Not as far as I can see. And, the writer on the ABA site doesn't call it voter suppression. I understand that you believe that the quote you have inserted above MEANS that what happened there IS voter suppression. But that's WP:OR on your part, I would argue. Novellasyes (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)