Talk:Voting rights in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Right to Vote?[edit]

The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments prohibit the States from various restrictions on voting right, but exactly where does the Constitution actually grant the right to vote? If it does not, perhaps this article should address that omission. El charangista 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution mentions in several places that the states handle the election process. Such as in Section 4. Then there's the concept that the people have all the rights and they grant only some tasks to the government. (SEWilco 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
The Constitution never explicitly grants ANYONE the right to vote. There is a requirement that each state has a democratically-elected state government. There is a statement that members of the House of Representatives are to be elected by the people. It was left to the states to determine the electorate. The 15th, 19th, and 26th (and to some extent, the 14th) amendments merely limit what restrictions the states can place on voting rights. Schoop 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was doing some cleanup on the Suffrage article, and moved an external link (here) which relates to this. There should probably be a paragraph on this - perhaps as a subsection of an "other initiatives" section, another of which could be the DC paragraph. - David Oberst 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In an article about the "right to vote" there must be some mention of the source of that right. In fact, the American constitution, which provides many rights to its citizens in the Bill of Rights, does not provide any right to vote. The American Revolution did not extend the franchise any more than it ended slavery. Voting in America is a privilege. --The Four Deuces (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Property Based Voting Rights[edit]

It probably should say something on this page about when the right to vote was extended to the working class -- i.e. when restrictions on owning property was removed. Was the right there all along? Surely somebody must know! Mozric 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC) I agree with this point - it is a BIG gap in the treatment of the subject. We focus on race and gender but early on the vote was denied based on religion and property. There are references to Andrew Jackson, but nothing more. Apparently this was dealt with on a state-by-state basis, making the subject more complex. Sorry I have nothing substantive to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSHouck3 (talkcontribs) 20:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Under "National milestones of franchise extension", it says "Landless white men: 1856" but that's it. The article should spell out if there was always a property qualification before that. Grant | Talk 14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any proof or citiation for the assertion that landless white men were given suffrage only in 1856. I want to delete that point, if there is no sufficient proof.Balajiviswanathan (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm..., try pages 13 and 15 of this and page 90 of this as arguments against the 1856 date. Also see this, particularly the second paragraph, which might bear on this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You should check on-line texts of the early state constitutions. No state admitted after the first thirteen had religious or property qualifications for voters, and none of those in the constitutions of the original thirteen survived long into the nineteenth century. 70.233.163.231 (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Many of the same state constitutions also had no qulifications based on race or sex but the exclusions still existed.206.18.168.64 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)JWales

nonresident citizens?[edit]

I think this bit is confusing, but don't know how to clear it up:

US Citizens residing overseas who would otherwise have the right to vote are granteed the right to vote in federal elections by UOCAVA. [1]
U.S. Citizens who do not meet residency requirements (e.g., insular area residents and nonresident expatriates) are not afforded congressional representation, and are not enfranchised to vote in federal elections.

I added the first paragraph to make it clear that just being overseas doesn't remove your right to vote, but I'm not sure what to do about the 2nd; I think there is a class of citizens described there, e.g. Puerto Ricans maybe, but it's confusing to include "nonresident expatriates" in the description unless that's a technical term somehow. --69.235.245.41 13:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a layman, and adding emphasis to point up certain bits of the following -
  • Article One of the United States Constitution says, in Section 2, Clause 1 :"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
  • That same article says, in Section 2, Vlause 1: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." However, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says, in Section 1: "The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."
  • Article Two of the United States Constitution says, in Section , Clauses 1 and 2: "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
  • The Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution says, in Section 1: "The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment."
As I read that, voting for elective federal offices may only take place via the several states or via the DofC. Accordingly, implementation of UOCVA appears to be via each individual U.S. State (see the section in this document headed "GOVERNORS' REPORTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES IN STATE LAW MADE UNDER FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM"). The question, then, is whether each of the 50 U.S. States and the DofC considers a person who acquired Jus soli U.S. citizenship through birth within the jurisdiction of that U.S. State or the DofC to be, for voting purposes, a person of that state (or district) and whether each U.S. State and the DofC has implemented mechanisms whereby such persons may vote by absentee ballot.
Take my own case for example—I personally am a U.S. Citizen expat who does not maintain a residence in any of the U.S. states or in the DofC. I was born in Chicago, and now make my home in the Philippines. I am neither a U.S. Government employee nor a member of the U.S. Uniformed Services. As far as I can find, I do not have the right to vote in Illinois unless the Illinois General Assembly has made special provision for my case (i.e. born in Illinois but no longer resident there). (see Article 3, Section 1 here.) AFAICT, no such provision has been made by the Illinois General Assembly.
Other relevant expat situations besides mine may exist (e.g., expats who are naturalized citizens, expats who are Jus soli citizens born in incorporated territories or unincorporated territories, possibly other cases). -- Boracay Bill 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like the discussion in this thread has not been satisfactorily resolved. As far as I know, U.S. citizens living abroad for any reason and for any length of time, may vote, permanently absentee, in the district in which they last lived. That statement may not be correct for each and every state, but it is correct for some.
I, personally, as a U.S. citizen, only wish to vote in national elections, and find it a bit amusing to be sent detailed ballots with school bonds and obscure local positions on them. The section Overseas and nonresident Citizens is incomplete, and, I think, incorrect. --Hordaland (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is incomplete and may be incorrect. I am doing a bit of original research on the matter by attempting to re-register to vote in Washington State, the state in which I last lived, which stopped sending me absentee ballots some years ago. regarding changes to the article, let's remember WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Proportion of African Americans in southern states[edit]

African Americans were voting in southern states during Reconstruction, even where they were in a majority. They did not elect only African Americans to office, and whites continued to dominate state legislatures during Reconstruction. It's true that whites feared their political power, but the statement as written is confusing. Whites wanted to reduce their power and return to white supremacy.--Parkwells (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Should there not be some discussion about the fact that most residents in the South during reconstruction, both white and black, were not allowed to vote. Most areas including Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and parts of others were under Military control for up to 12 years. At that time, many offices were appointed by military command. They often appointed blacks and carbetbaggers into these offices to further agitate the local populace.206.18.168.64 (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)JWales
This is an inaccurate statement, as freedmen and blacks were granted the right to vote by constitutional amendments in the 1860s, well before the end of Reconstruction. Former Confederate whites were temporarily blocked from voting unless they took a loyalty oath. So, elections took place among the residents of the states. Specifically, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri were slave-holding states that had not seceded from the Union. They were not under military occupation by Reconstruction governments.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Enfranchisement - determined at State or Federal level?[edit]

I noticed that the lede says, "... only citizens can vote in U.S. elections ...". I know that some states and municipalities allow noncitizen residents to vote in non-federal elections, and was about to make an edit to point that up, when it occurred to me to wonder where the restriction that only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections comes from. A little poking around turned up:

  • The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most --Seablade (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)numerous Branch of the State Legislature. (from Article I Section 2 of the U.S. constitution[2])
  • The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. (from the 17th amendment to the U.S. constitution)
  • The Executive Branch (President and Vice President) [...] Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (see Article II Section 1 of and the 12th amendment to the U.S. constitution)

Regarding the specification for congressional elections that "electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures", one wonders whether or not some states might enfranchise persons who are not U.S. citizens as electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. Checking the WP article Right of foreigners to vote in the United States, it appears that Massachusetts, for one, does just that (Article IV, Chapter I., Section III. House of Representatives) : "Every male person, being twenty-one years of age, and resident in any particular town in this Commonwealth for the space of one year next preceding, having a freehold estate within the same town, of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds, shall have a right to vote in the choice of a Representative or Representatives for the said town."

Regarding the executive branch elections, I see nothing here requiring executive branch electors to be U.S. citizens, nor requiring that the states only enfranchise U.S. citizens to vote in selecting electors (nor, for that matter, requiring states to select electors by popular vote—but that's another matter).

It is entirely possible that I misapprehend the foregoing. Even if I do, however, it seems to me that this article should make these matters clearer than it presently does. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is an insular area — a United States territory that is neither a part of one of the fifty states nor a part of the District of Columbia, the nation's federal district. Insular areas, such as Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, are not allowed to choose electors in U.S. presidential elections or elect voting members of the U.S. Congress. This grows out of Article one and Article two of the the United States constitution, which specifically mandate that electors are to be chosen by "the People of the several States". In 1961, the 23rd amendment to the constitution extended the right to choose electors to the District of Columbia.

At Federal level is determined by the Federal government and at state level by the State government.

Reference: GREGORIO IGARTÚA ET AL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL

(responding to the comment just above) My layman's understanding of that referenced case is that it holds, among other things, that voting rights at the federal level are determined by the U.S. Constitution. More info in the Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

WtMitchell is right, at the State level by the State Constitution and any constitutional power consistant with Constitutional provisions by it to the State legislature and State government and at Federal level by the Federal constitution and any constitutional power consistant with the Constitutional provisions to the U.S. Congress and Federal government.

Reference: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) pp 549, the U.S. Supreme Court affirm: There is in our political system a government of each of the several States, and a Government of the United States. Each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of those governments will be different from those he has under the other. "United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. Justia.com U.S. Supreme Court Center. 1875. Retrieved 2010-01-13. ]

Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 7 (1943) that affirm: The protection extended to citizens of the United States by the privileges and immunities clause includes those rights and privileges which, under the laws and Constitution of the United States, are incident to citizenship of the United States, but does not include rights pertaining to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause. "Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944)" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. Justia.com U.S. Supreme Court Center. 1944-01-17. Retrieved 2010-01-13. ]

See also: State citizenship --Seablade (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the point I was trying to make, the edit prior to mine appears to assert that enfranchisement at the Federal level is determined by the Federal government—my understanding of the decision, however, is that it holds that enfranchisement at the federal level is set by constitutional provisions, and the federal government does not have the authority to change that. Judge Torruell disagrees with this in a partial dissent. To quote a bit from the decision:

The panel is unanimous in agreeing that the U.S. Constitution does not give Puerto Rico residents the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives because Puerto Rico is not a state.

Chief Judge Lynch and Judge Lipez conclude that this panel is bound by Igartúa III 's holding that the Constitution does not permit granting such a right to the plaintiffs by means other than those specified for achieving statehood or by amendment.   Chief Judge Lynch independently concludes that this holding in Igartúa III is correct.   Judge Lipez considers the panel bound by this holding in Igartúa III, but he does not express a view of his own on its merit.   Chief Judge Lynch and Judge Lipez agree that Igartúa III requires dismissal of plaintiffs' claims based on treaties and international law.   Judge Lipez joins the holding that dismissal of the case is affirmed.   He joins this introduction, the introduction to Section II, Sections II.A, II.B, and II.C.1, and Section III of Chief Judge Lynch's opinion.   He expresses additional views in his concurring opinion.

Judge Torruella dissents and is of the view that the constitutional text neither denies citizens of Puerto Rico the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives nor imposes a limitation on the federal government's authority to extend the franchise to territorial residents under other constitutional powers.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Perceptions of disenfranchisement in Puerto Rico[edit]

Any U.S. citizen who resides in Puerto Rico (whether a Puerto Rican or not) is effectively disenfranchised at the national level. Although the Republican Party and Democratic Party chapters in Puerto Rico have selected voting delegates to the national nominating conventions participating on U.S. Presidential Primaries or Caucuses, U.S. citizens not residing in one of the 50 States or in the District of Columbia may not vote in Federal elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablade (talkcontribs) 05:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting rights U.S. courts Decisions[edit]

Pope v. Williams 193 U.S. 621, 632 (1904): ...the privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals in violation of the Federal Constitution. The State might provide that persons of foreign birth could vote without being naturalized...

Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A. 2d 431 (Md. Ct. App. 1966); y U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 552 (1875).

Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 7 (1943): "The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, ...is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship..."

U.S. v. Cruikshank: 'We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.

Lassiter v. Northampton Electoral Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 50 (1959): "The States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised; Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 633; Mason v. Missouri, 179 U.S. 328, 335..." Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 379 (1963): "States can within limits specify the qualifications of voters in both state and federal elections; the Constitution indeed makes voters' qualifications rest on state law even in federal elections."

Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 647 (1966), se afirmó que: "Under the distribution of powers effected by the Constitution, the States establish qualifications for voting for state officers, and the qualifications established by the States for voting for members of the most numerous branch of the state legislature also determine who may vote for United States Representatives and Senators...

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970). "No function is more essential to the separate and independent existence of the States and their governments than the power to determine the qualifications of their own voters...

Marston v. Lewis, 410 U.S. 679 (1973); Burns v. Fortson, 410 U.S. 6861 (1973); Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419, 422 (1970); McDonald v. Bd. of Election, 394 U.S. 802, 807 (1969); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965); y, Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 535 (1965).

--Seablade (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

States that permanently disenfranchise ex-felons[edit]

"As of July 2007, fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life, even after the person has served the sentence, while only two states, Maine and Vermont, allow incarcerated individuals to vote.[22]"

As of April 2011, only Virginia and Kentucky permanently bar ex-felons from ever voting. This information should be generally verifiable, but see http://www.congress.org/news/2010/02/09/should_exfelons_vote?all=1

It would be good to update the article with current information, since this is almost four years old.

98.102.112.66 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Tracey McK, 4/28/2011

Inter American Commision on Human Right - Organization of American States REPORT Nº 98/03* CASE 11.204[edit]

Inter American Commision on Human Right - Organization of American States REPORT Nº 98/03* CASE 11.204

The Inter American Commission on Human Right of the Organization of American States on the report No. 98/03 concluded that the United States Government is responsible for violations of the Petitioners’ rights under Articles II and XX of the American Declaration by denying the Petitioners, the District of Columbia Citizens, an effective opportunity to participate in their federal legislature. In my opinion this information is pertinent to this article.

Inter American Commision on Human Right - Organization of American States REPORT Nº 98/03* CASE 11.204

On April 1, 1993, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”) received a petition from Timothy Cooper on behalf of the Statehood Solidarity Committee (the “Petitioners”) against the Government of the United States (the “State” or “United States”). The petition indicated that it was presented on behalf of the members of the Statehood Solidarity Committee and all other US citizens resident in the District of Columbia.

The petition alleged that all efforts to invoke available internal remedies had failed, that all domestic remedies had been exhausted, and therefore that the petition was admissible. The petition also alleged that the United States was responsible for violations of Articles II (right to equality before law) and XX (right to vote and to participate in government) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in connection with the inability of citizens of the District of Colombia to vote for and elect members of the U.S. Congress.

The State has contended that the Petitioners’ petition is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies before the courts in the United States. It also argues that the complaint fails to state claim under Articles II or XX the American Declaration. According to the State, the special status given to the District of Columbia was based on geography alone rather than any individual characteristics such as race, gender, creed and the like, and therefore does not constitute a human rights violation. The State also contends that the residents of the District of Columbia are not excluded from the political process in the United States, and that the inability of District of Columbia residents to select voting members of Congress involves issues of constitutional law and federal structure that should be left in the realm of political debate and decision-making.

As set forth in this report, having examined the information and arguments provided by the parties on the question of admissibility, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission decided to admit the present petition in respect of Articles II and XX of the American Declaration. In addition, after having examined the merits of the Petitioners’ claims, the Commission concluded that the State is responsible for violations of the Petitioners’ rights under Articles II and XX of the American Declaration by denying the Petitioners an effective opportunity to participate in their federal legislature.

Reference: Inter American Commision on Human Right - Organization of American States REPORT Nº 98/03* CASE 11.204

Inter American Commision on Human RightREPORT Nº 98/03*

--Seablade (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS REITERATES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES:

119. Provide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their national legislature. --Seablade (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an error on the map showing the states that allow 17 year olds to vote in a primary if they turn 18 by the date of the General election. The map says the gray staes allow this. It is the purple states on the map that allow it, not the gray states. See the box in the corner of the map that gives the date of when the purple stats allowed the practice.

Don Wright General Counsel NC State Board of Elections don.wright@ncsbe.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.4.131.131 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:2191ctmqpsa34d.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:2191ctmqpsa34d.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

ID requirements[edit]

I was surprised to see nothing about the recent plague of laws requiring voters to present a passport or other government identification at the polls. Did I miss it? Shouldn't this be in here? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is adequately addressed for purposes of this article in the Background section, where it says "the 'right to vote' is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the 'right to vote' for other reasons." Further background detail is provided in that article section. See also the Voter ID laws in the United States article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
That article has the info I was looking for. Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Discriminatory effects of election systems[edit]

Voting rights are also considered to extend to election systems. In the second half of the 20th century, the US Supreme Court required states to redistrict according to census results after congressional reapportionment. Many states had not redistricted since the early 20th century and/or had election systems based on geographic districts, such as counties, rather than population. This changed under application of the "one man, one vote" principle. Secondly, at-large election systems, popular for county and municipal elections, have been legally challenged when discriminatory effects were found; settlement has often resulted in adoption of single-member districts or alternative election systems, such as limited voting or cumulative voting. The goal is that significant minorities, as well as majorities, should have the ability to elect candidates of their choice; otherwise they are considered to suffer from a dilution of voting power under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Am working on adding this content and sources to the article. Parkwells (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please move this content into the body of the article. The lead should summarize the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD. Also I'm not at all convinced this material is on-topic for this article, which is primarily about eligibility to vote. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Black voters in early America[edit]

So we now have three sources saying only whites could vote in the early US, and one scholarly article debunking this. It seems to me this needs some expansion. If this is a widely held belief that is false, it merits a sentence or two. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixes / clarifications needed??[edit]

American Samoa should be mentioned a territory where U.S. citizen residents are not allowed to vote in U.S. national and presidential elections (as Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands are mentioned) -- right? It seems to me that the explanation given in paragraph 2 of the lead of the Insular area article confuses this a bit too -- I came here hoping to find clarification which would help there, but struck out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Milestones of national franchise extension[edit]

I was reading over this article and I noticed that it says "voting rights in the United States that occurred beginning in 1792 - present time." and then proceeds to list dates and milestone events. However as I was reading I noticed that it starts with 1792 then goes to 1776 followed by 1787. The rest of them appear to be correctly ordered but I was very confused about those.Diamond Age (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a significant change made recently with this edit. Request input from other editors on this - is the new list is better and just needs improving or the old list is better? Whizz40 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Fixed the formatting, cites and chronological order. Whizz40 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)