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 Jeans775 (talk) 18:57, 22 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)

Prohibition of literacy tests

The article makes the following statement:

A 1970 Amendment to the Voting Rights Act prohibited the use of literacy tests for determining voting eligibility.

This gives a misleading impression. The original 1965 voting rights act prohibited the use of literacy tests, but the prohibition only applied to select states and counties (i.e. mostly in the South). For details, see Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (The formula for coverage under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act).

OTOH, the 1970 Amendment prohibited literacy tests in all states, albeit only for 5 years. I presume that this was subsequently made permanent or was otherwise extended). Fabrickator (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Reconsidering the gist of this article

Question: Is there a consensus definition of what the term "voter suppression" means, and if so, where can that definition be found so we can all look at the WP:RSs that indicate what the term means, so that our definition comports with that? I don't see the term being defined in online dictionaries. I'm not sure it has an official meaning. So to talk about it, I think that our best bet is to take a look at how the term is used by the good old stand-bys of the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, etc. -- our national newspapers that obsess over politics and that do write about events associated with doing things such as removing names of voters from voter registration lists, state laws about voting, and so on. What acts/events/laws do those WP:RS use the phrase "voter suppression" as a label for? In the meantime, there appear to be a wealth of NGOs that advocate for fewer restrictions on the voting process in one way or the other, such as the ACLU and Brennan Center, and they use colorful language to describe laws or processes they don't like. One example linked to in the article at present is Voter suppression in the United States#Limitations on early and absentee voting which mentions this, "As of 2020, Georgia requires absentee voters to provide their own postage for their ballots. On April 8, 2020, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging this rule, claiming it "is tantamount to a poll tax." The attached link is to an ACLU press release. I find no indications anywhere else in WP:RS that anyone else (such as reporters for the NYT) would have any truck with that ACLU view. So all-in-all, I think there's a lot of content in this article that needs to go, unless other editors can provide evidence that WP:RS agree that various events that are linked in here and said to be instances of voter suppression are regarded by WP:RS as voter suppression. I kind of think the article as it stands is a hot mess. Novellasyes (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: My first reaction was that I was sympathetic to your thoughts that the article content isn't well-focused. But as for your objection to the issue of whether requiring postage to return a ballot ought to be considered tantamount to a poll tax, well I think that at the least, this is a palpable argument.

We don't generally ask our reliable sources to determine the validity of such an opinion, we ask that reliable sources accurately report what others have stated. In this case, Columbia Law has published "Stamping" Out the Postage Poll Tax, in support of this argument. This happens to be my view as well, but that is just incidental. While I agree this article can benefit from some tightening up, my opinion is that you have picked up on the wrong thing. Fabrickator (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Per that link, "the Eleventh Circuit held that requiring voters to pay for postage on mail ballots is not a constructive poll tax" and that's where the ACLU's case on this died. The article gives the opinion of its author (Samuel Ackerman) who is identified as having been a JD candidate at Columbia Law School in 2022 that contrary to the Eleventh Circuit, when voters have to pay postage on mail ballots, it is a constructive poll tax. I did a search on his 41-page article and no references to "voter suppression" showed up. This Wikipedia article shouldn't be claiming that the fact that in Georgia, you have to pay for your own postage to mail in a mail-in ballot is voter suppression when it is not labeled that way even by someone who thinks it is a constructive poll tax. His article does note that 33 states do not pre-stamp their mail-in ballots.Novellasyes (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Please give a link to the Samuel Ackerman paper. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It is the blue-linked article in Fabrickator’s post above called “Stamping out the Postage Poll Tax”. Novellasyes (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the Voting Rights Act was to eliminate or otherwise mitigate various forms of voter suppression. The linkage is so implicit that it's not frequently stated explicitly, but here, the League of Woman Voters stated:

Voter suppression in southern states raged in the form of laws to prevent poor and Black voters from participating in elections. These laws, known as Jim Crow laws, included poll taxes and literacy tests. Many of these voter suppression strategies remained in place until the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act.

As further basis for the claim of an implicit connection, consider that even the Wikipedia article Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections doesn't include the phrase voter suppression (but you will find disenfranchisement). Fabrickator (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Does a consensus definition (in the WP:RS world outside of Wikipedia) of what the term "voter suppression" means exist? Is there a consensus understanding (in the WP:RS world outside of Wikipedia) about which acts/behaviors/tactics/events should be referred to or labeled as "voter suppression"? For a number of the anecdotes/stories presented in this article, the attached citations didn't or don't use that label to describe the anecdotes/stories. There are voter rights groups that lobby on this issue and argue against more restrictive ways of going about things and in favor of more expansive ways of going about things -- the "things" being a wide array of ways to conduct elections such as how election officials should maintain their lists of registered voters, how long early voting periods should be, the use of drop boxes, how absentee balloting should work, how many polling stations there should be per capita, whether you need to have a photo ID to register to vote, whether your state government should pay for the postage for you to return your mail-in ballot -- I see a ton of different ideas about these topics and more on the websites of voting rights groups. And I also see that it is not uncommon for them to say, about a law they disagree with, that the law or procedure or list-cleaning tactic they don't like is "voter suppression". What I am not seeing at least so far is WP:RS that have taken up this terminology or understanding of the voter rights groups. I do see phrases like "more restrictive" and "less restrictive" at times in WP:RS. There's a line-drawing problem here. Should "any action or act that makes it marginally more difficult for one voter to vote" be regarded as voter suppression? If not, where is the line between "acts that make it harder/more inconvenient to register to vote or vote" that do not count as vote suppression versus acts that do count as vote suppression? It's not up to editors on Wikipedia, as far as I understand our role, to decide where that line is. We would look for WP:RS on that. Sometimes journalists take up the language of activist groups or the language of scholars with opinions in an area. Has that happened here? Not that I have seen so far. Novellasyes (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: I realize you may not be interested in hearing from me, but I wanted to point out that providing postage is not quite as simple as attaching a postage stamp, since multiple stamps may be required. Is 4 stamps enough? Is 6 stamps too many? Given the absence of any personal advantage one obtains by voting (the likelihood that any individual's own vote will affect the outcome is effectively zero), so every incremental effort that's required to vote will have the tendency to deter people from voting. When we used to ask people to actually come to the polls to vote (unless they were actually going to be out of their voting district on election day), we didn't offer to reimburse their transportation expenses to the polling place... such a system would have been impractical. By comparison, some of the complexities of ballots in at least some states (e.g. ranked choice voting) may deter people from voting. But this has been determined to be justified by the countervailing advantages.

However, I think your effort to establish a "threshold" for voter suppression is simply misplaced, notwithstanding the judge's ruling. Whether or not the intent was to suppress voting is not the point, the question is whether it has the plausible effect of potentially deterring people from voting. Your efforts to establish a threshold of how much it must deter people from voting before it can be called "voter suppression" are misplaced. Fabrickator (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, "bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article." I don't have an opinion and I'm not offering an opinion about whether people should or should not have to pay for their own stamps to put on mail-in ballots, and I'm also not offering an opinion on how early early-voting should start or how state governments should clean their voter lists, or whether people should have to present a photo ID to register. I'm not offering an opinion on any of those things as specific policies, or as to whether any of those things constitute voter suppression. I am offering an opinion that it is not our role as Wikipedia editors to decide where to draw the line between an election law or tactic that goes over the line into voter suppression, versus one that doesn't. The opinion I'm offering is that we have to leave that up to WP:RS. Novellasyes (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the judge's ruling that failure to provide for returning a ballot without having to affix postage is not voter suppression, I'm asserting that there is no line as to what constitutes voter suppression. Anything which impedes voting without a practical reason constitutes voter suppression. For instance, some people have difficulty walking up stairs, but whether having to walk up stairs is a form of voter suppression depends on whether it's practical to allow for people to vote without having to walk up stairs. (Then again, voting by mail effectively addresses this problem.)

"Voter suppression" is a phrase that "says what it means and means what it says" and does not require further definition. Fabrickator (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No Original research is one of the three core policies of Wikipedia. That linked article explains the policy in great detail. The first three sentences say, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." I understand from what you are saying here that you do not believe that it is WP:OR to decide that the meaning of the term "voter suppression" is self-evident and does not require further definition. I do believe that it is WP:OR but of course I could be wrong. Wikipedia sponsors a Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard where people can get the wisdom of other Wikipedia editors when they disagree on when something is or isn't OR. Reading through those case studies is instructive. If you would like, you could submit an inquiry on the noticeboard about this situation and let the people who are very experienced in discerning about OR take a crack at this situation. Novellasyes (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)