Talk:Felony disenfranchisement

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Human rights Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

Text and/or other creative content from Felony disenfranchisement was copied or moved into Felony disenfranchisement in the United States. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Felony disenfranchisement was copied or moved into Disfranchisement. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Felony disenfranchisement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Felony disenfranchisement at the Reference desk.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KyraAG326.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US Disenfranchisement inherited from England

The author states: "The practice of disenfranchisement was transplanted to America by English settlers." For many reasons, this seems unlikely. The author should substantiate this or remove it. --Kjb 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Centric

I added the section "other countries", but this is still to little for a global encyclopedia.-- ExpImp^talkcon 16:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that "Most democracies give ex-offenders the same voting rights as other citizens", as the article currently says, then there's little need to discuss other countries, unless there's a history of those countries formerly barring felons from voting and eventually abolishing that. Not every topic applies equally to every country. PaulGS 04:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather a poor idea to create an article with different sections for every country in the world. If you actually managed to write a section for every one, the article would be too big. In any case such an article would be called something like disenfranchisement for serious criminal offences since no civil law countries and few if any common law countries retain a felony-misdemeanour distinction. While it might be nice to have a more general article, renaming this one Felony disenfranchisement in the United States should do for now. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism

It seems that the charge of racism is a bit of a stretch. Maybe racial discrimination would be more appropriate, but even then one may argue that just because somebody argued that it is racially motivated does not make it true. User:Kotika98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.94.211.118 (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age I don't believe that it's because of racism. However I reckon that in every state where this system was used it was for one purpose only - to deny more black people the vote. Notice how many of the specific laws for this system were enshrined in law after the 1870s and how most of these states are southern states. Whatever, the more I read about the great democratic USA, the less democratic I realise that it is. Excercising ones' right to vote is a basic human right and human rights can be withdrawn if a person is serving time but not afterwards and certainly not for life. That's just barbaric but then so are many things that the USA continues to do - death penalty, starting wars for oil, attacking countries with the sense to vote for socialist parties, allowing late term abortions, going to church in droves, etc.--Xania

^talk 22:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the insinuation in the article that because a higher % of minorities are in prison that it must be some kind of conspiracy to deny voting rights to minorities needs to be removed. This is off-topic, a complete stretch of the imagination, and a fringe left-wing political conspiracy theory.216.114.194.20 (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the US section pointing out a racial impact due to disproportional conviction rates, I'm not sure it is relevant to the article subject. In fact, it seems like COI to me.--2605:6000:F3C2:8400:9E7:514B:A376:53F3 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disfranchisement v. Disenfranchisement

Both mean the same thing, but which is preferable? As a legal term, the former is prefered in law, but the latter lay distortion appears to be gaining ground in general media. Can we get a ruling from the judges, please? Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is by far the more common usage per WP:MOS it should be the title as to the "preferred" legal usage: LANE v. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268 (1939), HARMAN v. FORSSENIUS, 380 U.S. 528 (1965), HARPER v. VIRGINIA BD. OF ELECTIONS, 383 U.S. 663 (1966). (And I'd dozens of scholarly articles) -- Electiontechnology (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party response per RfC: This doesn't really belong in RfC and probably should be removed. Typically RfC is used for entrenched disagreements (ie discussions with more than two comments), discussions with wider significance (naming conventions), and such like. In any case this a disagreement over spelling rather than style.

But since I began a response anyway...

Well for starters, disenfranchisement sounds much more natural to me. On a most objective measure:

Usage: Disenfranchisement gets 2,840,000 hits in Google while disfranchisement gets 89,000. I get similar results on Google Scholar: 22,600 for disenfranchisement and 6,470 for disfranchisement. And while the results on Google Books are 2,060 on disenfranchisement and 3,290 on disfranchisement, the results are disfranchisement mostly relate to books published before 1950. When you only count books published in 1950 or later, the figures are essentially equal 2,010 to 2,030.

Dictionaries: My American Oxford English Dictionary (it comes with my Mac) gives priority to disenfranchisement while listing disfranchisement as an alternative spelling. And my Oxford English Dictionary does the same.

As far as I can see disfranchisement is mainly archaic but does enjoy some current academic (and possibly legal) use. Disenfranchisement is by far the most used and its use in academic works outnumbers disfranchisement by more than three to one. Disenfranchisement should be used and its alternative spelling noted. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'd go for disenfranchisement myself, since it is the logical opposite of enfranchisement. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disenfranchisement. I've worked in this field of law before, and have never heard "disfranchisement" used modernly. On Google, "Felony disenfranchisement" gets 20,100 hits, "Felony disfranchisement" gets 1,300; on Google Books, "Felony disenfranchisement" gets 195 hits, "Felony disfranchisement" gets 22. bd2412 T 05:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

Just being a stickler for terms, I suppose, but the Republic of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom; hence, any discussion of it belongs in a different section. Perhaps this would be fixed by previous assertions on the organization of the article, however. 74.141.107.176 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to its own section, but haven't had time yet to dot the i's & cross the t's. Rodhull andemu 23:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of rights due to felony conviction proposed merge

That other article seems to cover other issues such as not allowing felons to possess firearms that are not the same as disenfranchisement as people usually think of it, so I would recommend against the merge. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal there has been removed (there never was one here) as there is no support for this; and no justification given in the first place. Swanny18 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment)

The arguments section is a bit thin. There is a very fundamental reason why prisoners should be allowed to vote. Many rights exist as firewalls against potential state exploitation. For example, the English right to silence (right against self-incrimination in the US) came into being because confessions were being forced out of people. The protection against being tried twice for the same crime exists to prevent weak cases being forced through by just prosecuting until there is a conviction. In exactly the same way, the universal right to vote protects democracy because it prevents the state from deciding who does and does not have a voice. In the Soviet Union for example, dissidents lost their rights because the state had the power to declare them insane. Once the state has the power to decide who does and does not get a vote then it is no longer democratic. If I do not like the way that somebody else votes, then I must use my vote to silence them. And this is where the responsibility should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.141.94 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS GUY IS RIGHT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.48.100 (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments

When in the "for" section citations are asked for(multiple Who?'s), but not in the against, it seems to reduce the objectivity of the arguments section. Fyrfytr1434 05:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyrfytr1434 (talk • contribs)

Arguments section

Few of the points in the "Arguments" section seem to be sourced and some look suspiciously like original reflections. Elsewhere, the article seems more subtley biased: "Currently, over 5.3 million people in the United States are denied the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement" (not "because they have committed felonies"). --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, very bias. Clearly the person who wrote this is against felony disenfranchisement. "Is at the forefront of this issue"? What issue? There is no issue. The whole inflation section is worthless... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.48 (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed a POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very popular topic and I will be interested to see the different type of feedback you receive, because of the strong opinions on the subject. SIde effeX08 (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)SIde effeX08[reply]

Support

I think that the phrase: "Also argued is allowing ex-offenders the right to vote hurts women (and others) who are victimized by crime." should be removed, unless someone can elaborate on this point or provide a good source. The current reference is to a poorly written FOX news article that use this argument to appeal to emotion, and doesn't make clear why the rights of women need to be singled out in a discussion of felony disenfranchisement. The only reason it is mentioned in the linked article is because the article discusses Obama and Romney's policies regarding women. L.livnev (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's amazing

these comments about it not being a racist practice in the US are incredible * ask a lower income black about this * just as in the old days people protesting against being kept away from voting polls or even registering were "disturbing the peace" and the federal government did nothing * that also was not racism * comfort distorts the mind * 74.78.15.101 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)grumpy[reply]

Neutrality?

The third paragraph (and a few other spots) in the united states section does not seem very neutral. Its purpose seems to infer upon the reader one of (or combination of) the following two things.

1. that the american justice system is racist. 2. that the mentioned races commit far more crime than others- how can this not be neutral? are facts and statistics racist?

both of which are not particularly 'neutral'.

Why, exactly, are these statistics mentioned? They don't seem to contribute to explaining the terms of what felony disenfranchisement means in the united states, and simply inject race arguments into an article not about race. I propose removing them.

2601:B:3100:9C8:2030:8380:4E32:AF48 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racial inequality in the American criminal justice system is a topic that has been studied and documented well enough to have its own article. As one examination of the topic states:

Felony disenfranchisement has direct roots in the Jim Crow Era. In the late 19th century, states above and below the Mason-Dixon Line began to find new and creative ways to keep black voters away from the polls. Banning people with felony convictions was one of the solutions.
For example, in 1901 the Commonwealth of Virginia had 147,000 black voters on the rolls. But many lawmakers saw this growing political block as a threat. At that year's Constitutional Convention, they hatched a plan to disenfranchise African Americans through a combination of black codes and felony disenfranchisement. One legislator said on the record that the plan would "eliminate the darkey as a political factor."

Ben Jealous, "Felony Disenfranchisement: A Holdover from the Jim Crow Era", Huffington Post (April 26, 2013).

Historically, some U.S. states have sought to prevent racial minorities from voting by enacting felony disenfranchisement laws, and then selectively and aggressively investigating, arresting, charging, and prosecuting minorities. This was particularly easy to do in the U.S. south up until the 1960s, during the time when the police, prosecutors, jurors, and judges were virtually all white. During this time, since teh abolition of slavery had left a vacuum in the market for cheap labor, black convicted felons were used in convict lease programs amounting to the same thing. If a black person appeared to be fit for labor, a white police officer might approach that person on the street and arrest them for something like "trespassing" or "disturbing the peace", and falsely testify in support of this charge. When the all-white jury convicted the black person of the charge, the white judge would determine that circumstances rendered this a felony and strip the black person of their rights, sending them off to a labor camp to be rented out and worked like a slave. The well-documented historical use of felony disenfranchisement to prevent minorities from voting is a fact notable enough to be mentioned in the article, even if its use has tapered off. bd2412 T 20:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the US section is not very neutral. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that it is POV-Pushing. This specific excerpt from the US section is chock full of biased undertones and word usage:

Felony disenfranchisement was a topic of debate during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Rick Santorum argued for the restoration of voting rights for convicted felons.[7] Santorum's position was attacked and distorted by Mitt Romney, who alleged that Santorum supported voting rights for felons while incarcerated rather than Santorum's stated position of restoring voting rights only after the completion of sentence, probation and parole.[7][8] President Barack Obama supports voting rights for ex-offenders.[9]

Take for example the use of "attacked and distorted" and "Barack Obama supports voting rights for ex-offenders." The whole thing sounds like MSNBC to be honest, and it is NOT neutral. PBX (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounding like MSNBC is only a bad thing when they get their facts wrong. Same is true for Fox, when facts are present. (A fact by any other source would smell as sweet.) I'm pretty sure that the republican candidates in question debated the issue in clean and present knowledge of Obama's position. That last quote you specifically complain about is about as factual as any attribution to a person's position could possibly be: I just added quote="I support restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders. I am a cosponsor of the Count Every Vote Act, and would sign that legislation into law as president." to the Obama cite—verbatim, from a written statement, formally endorsed. I sincerely hope that if this is how MSNBC chooses to behave, that they continue to do so. — MaxEnt 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014063051/http://hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart2.html to http://hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119133453/http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_statedisenfranchisement.pdf to http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_statedisenfranchisement.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia

Virginia's situation has been changing as there have been shifts in the Governor's policy and various court decisions have been handed down. Governor McAuliffe attempts to restore rights to any felons who are off of supervision, that he knows of. But there's still an individualized review before he signs off, which imposes a delay between when the felon becomes eligible under the Governor's restoration conditions, and when his rights actually get restored. Also, some felons may slip through the cracks and have to bring their situation to the Governor's attention in order to get their rights restored. Restoration is at the Governor's discretion, and if a Republican like Ed Gillespie gets elected, probably there will be some dramatic changes in restoration policy. St. claires fire (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs re-naming; remove "Felony"

I suggest that this article should be re-named. The concept of a felony is only used in the United States, so far as I know, making it a US-centric title, even though it covers other countries. Most other common law countries no longer use this term in their criminal procedure, and certainly no civil law countries do, since it is derived from the common law. Note that the article Loss of rights due to felony conviction was re-named Loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offence some time ago. I would suggest as a new title: "Disenfranchisement for conviction for criminal offence". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, leave the U.S. materials at this title, and break out the non-U.S. materials in a separate article at a non-U.S.-centric title. bd2412 T 02:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it is a substantial enough article without international aspects. I agree it should be moved. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any decision/consensus on the title change? I'm trying to do some updating on the felon disenfranchisement in Florida article but am wondering if it should just be absorbed into this one. If that makes more sense, I'm in favor of having one article that is about the issue in the U.S. and another (or multiple others) for the specificities of other countries. I think most people searching for this in the US would use this language to find it, but people in other countries may be using different terms (as mentioned above). Or keep it as one and be sure the a search for 'felony disenfranchisement' redirects to the new title. pretty new to editing, so not always sure of protocol. Ecs222 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC) -erin[reply]

Notwithstanding Joy's re-org, I think that this article really is about the US. I would suggest taking all the bits about other countries and putting them into the existing article: Collateral consequences of criminal conviction. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Propose page split for "Felony Disenfranchisement". Would welcome your opinion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because the US part of the article dwarfs everything else, it might as well be split off into an article specifically about the US, one that could also resolve the duplication with the content at disenfranchisement. I haven't examined article history - if it actually spent most of its lifetime as a US-centric article, it should just be renamed, and the info about other countries moved back "up" to the disenfranchisement article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and it seems it's been a constant struggle from the get-go, yet the amount of US-centricity has fluctuated over the years so a split can't be trivial. I'll have a stab at it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we continue this discussion at Talk:Disfranchisement#Felony disenfranchisement merge. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020012121/http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/state-toughens-policy-of-restoring-rights-to--freed-felons/1184821 to http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/state-toughens-policy-of-restoring-rights-to--freed-felons/1184821

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon

The map needs to be changed. Oregon does not allow convicted felons to vote while they are incarcerated. See https://sos.oregon.gov/voting-elections/Documents/Voter-Status-FAQ.pdf^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.151.182 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what the map says. It's a bit tough to tell as the shades are rather close. Frankly, that's more of an issue than any one state. Greater color contrast is needed to make the map useful. It's also an WP:ACCESS issue. oknazevad (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://sos.oregon.gov/voting-elections/Documents/Voter-Status-FAQ.pdf

[1] ttps://sos.oregon.gov/voting-elections/Documents/Voter-Status-FAQ.pdf

[1]