Talk:Voting Rights Act of 1965/Archive 1

Archive 1

General VRA discussion

I don't think this Act was such a great idea. If someone can't read, how can they be expected to make an informed decision when they choose a candidate? Andy5 11:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

In 1996, the VRA was effectively nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court, by its refusal to overturn a lower court decision in LaRouche vs. Fowler. The Democratic National Committee had refused to recognize delegates won by candidate Lyndon LaRouche in state primary elections during the 1992 Presidential campaign, once again using the "private club" argument to assert that the party would not recognize LaRouche's candidacy. LaRouche and elected Democrats from around the U.S. filed suit against Democratic National Committee head Donald Fowler, charging that the D.N.C. acts were in violation of the VRA. A lower court accepted the "private club" argument, and the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, allowed the decision to stand.

I know that in principle it seems like a nifty thing to make sure people are educated when they vote. But who decides who is educated and by what standards? Tales of blacks being accused of not being "literate" if they could not take a test in latin to vote are not false; I've personally met some of the victims of this "literary test" and other eyewitnesses (both black and white) and it has been documented to have occured in the South. That is why have that law.

Are there any third parties that argeee the VRA was "effectively nullified"? Can you point to any law books that speak of "LaRouche vs Fowler" as a significant turning point in the history of the VRA? AndyL

You can examine the transcript of the oral arguments, which was an external link to the article last time I checked. Also, here are excerpts from the Amicus Curiae brief, submitted by a long list of Democrats, led by former U.S. Congressman James Mann of Greenville, S.C. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because Andy persists in deleting the link to the oral arguments, I will include it here:

• Unedited excerpts from the transcript of LaRouche vs. Fowler (oral arguments)

That is not what I asked for. Can you point to any legal texts, articles in law journals etc that point to the LaRouche case as at all significant in the history of the VRA? That the ruling was at all considered a *legal precendent*? You argue that the ruling in LaRouche made the VRA essentially null. Well then there should be some legal experts who agree with that assessement. Who are they? Can you find anyting that's NOT on a LaRouche run website, ie anything from an independent source, that holds that this case is of *any* importance? AndyL

Au contraire, Andy, that is what you asked for: third parties that agree that the VRA was "effectively nullified." Most, if not all of them, are attorneys, and what makes it all the more interesting, many of them were involved in the original struggle to pass the VRA (see Amelia Boynton Robinson, if you haven't deleted that article yet).

"Among the 39 state legislators, are the leadership of black caucuses in nine states, the president of Alabama's New South Coalition, and the vice-president of the Alabama Democratic Coalition. National and state leaders of the nation's two major civil rights organizations--the NAACP and the SCLC--have signed on, as have prominent members of the African-American Lawyers Association, and the National Black Women's Caucus. In sum, the leadership of black Democrats in the United States is well represented."

As far as legal texts of articles in law journals, I don't know -- but the link I provided to the transcript of the oral arguments makes clear, that the parties arguing the case had no illusions about what was going on.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An additional reference: commentary by John Gilliam-Price, national spokesperson for the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, based in Baltimore, Maryland.--Herschelkrustofsky 06:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An amicus curiae brief is one thing, it's an immediate intervention into a case and will make claims about the case's importance whether valid or not. A better test of a case's importance is its subsequent impact and commentary in law journals and law books afterwards, particularly the use of the case as a legal precedent. Indeed, whether the case is considered a legal precedent *after the fact* is the litmus test for its importance. So can you please give me some evidence that the LaRouche case has been considered a precedent by judges or legal scholars in the period since the ruling?AndyL 15:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was not the law schools nor the academic community that fought to pass the VRA; it was the Civil Rights Activists and Democrats of conscience, and I find their views on this matter most relevant. Also, as I said, the transcript of the oral arguments speaks for itself.--Herschelkrustofsky 01:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In a stunning revalation, President Bush told congressional black caucus he ‘didn’t know anything about’ Voting Rights Act renewal, and that he would deal with it when it came up.

RawStory story not quite what it appears. Please see my post today on BOPnews for clarification, per Rep. Charles Rangel's office.--Ellen Dana Nagler

BTW, anyone have some history on this act? I'm curious who sponsored it and more details about who resisted it. Would be nice to have a brief summary about that. KarlHallowell 17:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

needs info on dates passed

this article needs the dates it was passed in the House and in the Senate, and who introduced it. Revolución 01:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Senate Voting Statistics

The article indicated that the Senate voted 77-19 with the Democrats voting 49-17 and the Republicans voting 30-2. There is an error somewhere in those figures. What was the correct vote?WallyK 00:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What languages are covered?

I'm unclear on exactly what languages have to be accomodated. Looking at this page from the DOJ leads me to believe that (roughly) the following languages are covered (in certain jurisdictions): most Native American languages, certain Asian languages (Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Vietnamese), Spanish and some French (in LA where Cajun). What I wonder is how do people claim that they have to provide for other languages such as Laotian, etc. (which is an Asian language but is not listed by the DOJ in its covered languages.)

First paragraph

and it provided for federal registration of voters in areas that had less than 50% of eligible voters registered. The act also provided for DOJ oversight to registration, and the Department's approval for any change in voting law in districts whose populations were at least 5% African-American

Not being from America I can't understand what this part of the first paragraph is saying. How does this act provide for registration of voters? Perhaps somebody with more knowledge on the subject could rewrite the opening paragraph as I feel it is the most important part of an article. MxAesir 09:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll clarify. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 18:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How parties voted on Act removed

Someone has gone in and removed the breakdown of how the parties voted on > the Voting Rights Act...presumably because it showed 80%+ of Republicans voted > for it back in 1965, but only 60%+ of Democrats. That was great info to > have, and should not have been deleted. The vote breakdowns were similar to > the Civil Rights Act, which so far has not been tampered with.

Jon in Portland, OR

Add it back. (you can sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~)). -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually a little bit baffled by the number of Democrats voting against the Act. My personal guess would be that they wanted something more radical and not that they disagreed with the proposed Act. Of course, I am most likely completely off here. Any ideas? Cangelis 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic Party of 1965 was a much different party than that of 2006. Remember, up until the 1980s the Democrats still ruled the South, and for obvious reasons, Southern Senators did not approve of some key aspects of this Act. Those conservative Democrats are no longer Democrats--almost all call the GOP home nowadays. -Clark, Austin 13 June 2006

No Federal right to vote?

The section at the bottom makes the claim that "there is no such federal right," and that "United States Supreme Court jurisprudence" has established that "there is a 'fundamental right' in the franchise." Perhaps some citations and/or quotations would be in order here? I've always read the 15th Amendment as extending Federal protection to voting rights, thus guaranteeing a "federal right" to vote, even if the Feds let the states deal with the actual mechanics of who gets to vote for the most part. --Eric 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a cite or two... you might want to as well. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but the case you cite doesn't make it clear that the Court considers the right to vote to be strictly a state matter. --Eric 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand (or agree) with the assertion that there is no federal right to vote. The 15th Amendment reads:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

That seems pretty conclusive to me. Brucehartford (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This section needs a lot more work - there will be a lot of litigation surrounding this question before the 2012 amendment. Someone with better wiki-skills should incorporate a cross-reference to the wiki on Crawford in footnote 34, and the Crawford case might be worthy of another paragraph of discussion.Profcarney (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the section is highly dubious. The citation to Bush v Gore is specifically and exclusively about presidential elections only. House and Senate elections (post-17th amendment) specifically call for a direct popular vote (even if the details are left to the states), and the 15th amendment is quite clear. And the entire last portion is completely uncited. I think this section may be a victim of WP:SYNTH. I'm removing it as an entirely dubious, unsubstantiated interpretation. oknazevad (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I read the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments, they specify that certain particular reasons cannot be used to deny or abridge the right to vote if that right is otherwise present. They do not specify conditions under which or situations in which that right is required or guaranteed to be present.

The 17th amendment does clearly specify one situation (election of Senators) in which the right to vote exists, but doesn't specify who "the people" who hold this right are (citizens of the states? noncitizen residents? anyone present on election day? can a state enfranchise persons under 18? are states prohibited from enfranchising those under 18, are states prohibited from enfranchising noncitizens? can enfranchisement qualifications vary from one state to another? etc? ...?).

Article 1, Section 2 specifies another situation in which "the People" have the right to vote but, as I read it, leaves it up to the state legislatures to determine which people are "Electors" with the right to cast ballots. [1] Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Added legacy section.

I put an article as a source but the article will die soon. How can I prevent my link from dying? Thanks!

Jerry Jones 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We could use much more detail about section 2

That's the permenant portion, covers the whole US, and is where court challenges to district plans on the basis of racial gerrymanders are made. Indeed the primary way counties and towns got added to the covered area that previously was the southern states was gross violations of section 2 after enactment. Jon 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a stub to help this process along. Jon 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding some more info. --Klmarcus 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting Rights Act of 2006

Currently, both the Senate and House have identical lanquage (see US House of Representives Thomas site). Section 5 of this bill (approarively enough also dealing with section 5 of the original VRA) greatly expands the wording. Basically it copies language from section 2 with the intention (see the house report on Thomas) of reversing O'Connor's interpreation that section 5 is merely a non-retrogression test and making the requirement to meet section 5 the same as to pass section 2. (Which have diverged in judisprictice since 1982.) Jon 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Connection to women? Also, "minorities" unclear.

I get the feeling this Act was largely spurred by the Civil Rights movement going on, but I'm still curious on its relation to gender. In addition, I bet there were too many people affected by this for it just to be an issue of black and white. What about the Hispanics and Latinos? What about all the children of Chinese railroad workers and gold diggers? I'm thinking the impacts of the Act need to be put into clear examples, too. This was happening to people, not numbers. I'll move the expansion stub to the main page and do a little adding to this at some point in the future. Kennard2 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the act pertains to gender nor to those under 18. It's only intended to protect racial minorites. Many of the counties listed as being covered by section 5 in California, New York, and Florida got on the list for gross section 2 violations against Hispanics. The two counties in SD covered by section 5 got on the list for gross section 2 violations against the local native american tribe. Jon 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Voting Rights Act is another one of those deceptive political moves using tax dollars to satisfy an icon's selfish whim. IF you are a citizen you have the right to vote. No wordy legislation is needed. It doesn't matter if you can read or write, as long as you are born in American or naturalized (which requires the ability to read and write in English). The first Voting Rights Act & Civil Rights Acts (which are the same) were mandated in the 1860s.

The question of the right of former slaves and their decendents to vote. The supreme court, during the Dred Scott decision ruled anyone with slave blood could never be a citizen of the United States. The 13th Amendment made these people part of the human race -- no longer merchandise -- but it did not make them citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment was approved giving citizens protection, etc. and without writting but in ver bal exchange give the Black residents the right to vote. Another deceptive political move. The same as women have an amendment giving them the right to vote,and confirming their citizenship (19th Amendment) the Black residents also need an amendment to confirm their place in the U.S.A.

The Voter's Right Act is nothing more than a covering of deceit. And maybe since you guys have peeped the hold you can stop talking about the corruption of our political icons who are suppose to be representative of the people, and curtail their corruption bringing the deteroriation (sp) of our country to remission.

There is no need for a Voter's Right or a Civil Rights Act. Acts are just that, a play on the imagination of others. A citizen is one born or naturalized in this country. All this waste of time & money identifying who can vote and who has rights is just that an ACT on the intelligence of the citizens. Is it just me or do anyone else see our children in this country, our future Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, green, yellow, or blue are suffering in education (wisdom and knowledge) while power hungry politicans play these ACTS eating up our time and money (selfishly glowing in their time here on earth no consideration of the future, others!)

Proposed External Links

I think the following site could be used as a reference for the assertion in the Pre-Clearance section that the voting age population turnout in 2000 and 2004 were in the 50s: [VAP turnout, 2000 Michael McDonald] and [VAP turnout, 2004, Michael McDonald]
According to the tutorial (I've never contributed before), I should propose an external link before making it. Hopefully this is appropriate 'WP etiquette'.--JerryTheGerbil (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Bartlett v. Strickland

The Washington Post has a story about this Supreme Court case that ruled against racial gerrymandering. I'm not sure where to put it properly though, so for now I put it under the "preclearance" or whatever that is section regarding "section 5". --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1975 changes don't even get a foot note?

The Section 5 covered areas of the VRA were vastly expanded beyond their initial range and the criteria for coverage changed dramatically in 1975 via amendments. You'd think they'd at least merit a mention, lest people wonder how some states joined the covered list later and despite not meeting the criteria of the original act. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Stupidest damn thing!

The map image doesn't render, only about the first twenty percent of its lines. People seem to be oblivious to this, they're incapable of cross-browser checking, whatever. The great joke is that the part that doesn't render is the part with the information. When I (as Lycurgus) fixed this, apparently broken for at least a year, it got reverted by Czrisher. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The only problem is that you fixed a small rendering error while making changes to the text that made the writing, shall we say, inaccurate. Had the edits been confined to the formatting problem, the reversion would have been unnecessary. In any case, the rendering problem has been addressed. Czrisher (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't exactly recall the text edits, but I see the ignorant, inappropriate, and inaccurate "bailed out" usage is still there, one of the things I tried to correct. Jurisdictions don't "bail out" of Federally mandated corrective programs. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See the Bail out section of the article here for an explanation of that terminology and links to supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken or Outdated Sources

What can be done to solve this problem? It seems clear to me that data which no longer applies is not useful to researchers or anyone else who uses the site for any reason. If you can't prove validity or whether the data applies to life today, why should we keep it? 66.209.252.225 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Link rot. Dead links aren't completely useless. Instead of removing a dead link that is being used as a source, you should probably tag it with {{dead link}}. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I just ran Checklinks on the article without finding any dead links, but Internet Archives are useful in fixing WP:Link rot. If information in the article has been overtaken by events, interested editors ought to update the article, citing relevant supporting sources as appropriate per WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Texas Republican Party Platform

I think this might be relevant to this article (and possibly many others). First the link to the document: http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf

taken from the Texas Republican party website here: http://www.texasgop.org/about-the-party (under the large bolded heading "About the Party", second link on the left)

the direct quote from that document:

Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.

While I am not a US citizen I am aghast. Anyway this does directly relate to this article and that is a link to the original source.

27.33.230.172 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)LogiC

Although the Texas Republican party isn't singled out by the article in its current state, the reasons why Republicans in the south in general are pushing to change or not renew the act are covered in detail in the article. Dave (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Disfranchise" v. "Disenfranchise"

The most recent edit changed a "disfranchised" to "disenfranchised". Both are, obviously, correct. Is or should one be preferred? I like "disfranchise" as the older word which has fewer syllables -- it's already quite long enough -- but am under the impression that "disenfranchise" is more familiar to many, for reasons unclear to me. Etymologically, I could argue that there is a slight differences in meaning, with "disenfranchisement" carrying connotations of retrogression -- or revanchism? -- but not with any expertise on the subject. So, I throw this out there to see if anyone else cares. Czrisher (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sections of the Act

Why do we have discussions of Section 2 and Section 5, but not of Sections 1, 3, and 4? Oughtn't there at least be brief summaries of the other parts of the law? john k (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a fairly cursory overview of Section 4 since it is very much in the news today. It could still use some fleshing out, though, and some references to Shelby_County_v._Holder and the SCOTUS opinion. All the bailout provisions are technically part of Section 4 too, so the whole article may need a little reorganizing. Nsteffel (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Amendments to the VRA

This article seems woefully incomplete without mentioning how various reauthorizations have changed both the states covered and what constituted a literacy test. At the very least, it'd be nice to see a graphic showing what states were included in Section 5 coverage and when. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to do this without redoing basically the entire article, and I'm kind of loathe to do so ahead of the upcoming Shelby v. Holder decision. 12.208.4.65 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Jurisdictions formerly covered

It is not correct to use this in the past tense. While it's true that pre-clearance requirements were struck down in the court decision, those states, as accurately described earlier in the article, are still covered under the law. The Department of Justice simply has no way of enforcing the law now. It doesn't make it no longer the law, it just makes it hard to enforce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.199.122 (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For something to be law, it must be valid under the Constitution. When the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it's true that the text of the former law remains on the books, but such text is not "law" anymore because it conflicts with the constitution. It's not merely that the DOJ has no way of enforcing 4(b) now; under Shelby County's interpretation of constitutional law, "the law" now is that 4(b) is "not law". Contrast this with Section 5, which is now unenforceable without 4(b) but still is valid under the Constitution (and thus still is law). So yes, the states remained covered by a piece of text that was once the law, but 4(b) is no longer the law; thus, past tense is correct. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Section 3

Can someone who knows add an explanation of Section 3 to the article? It's currently only mentioned in the "Bail in" subsection of Section 5. How does one get a district added under Section 3? Is it a remedy available to a Section 2 lawsuit winner? Is it something that the Justice department does? There's been much talk that Section 5 doesn't do anything without Section 4, but Section 3 was not touched. Contradictory information about the impact of the Supreme Court decision is being presented. Similarly, what's in Section 4 besides 4(b)? It would also be helpful if someone explained what Section 1 does (if it's just a preamble, then say that). Mdfst13 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added information about Section 3 and shifted existing material to the Section 4 subsection of this article that belongs there, and I have included information explaining the apparent contradiction (Section 5 is only tied to Section 4(b), as Section 3(c)'s bail in provision is independent of Section 5; thus, without Section 4(b), Section 5 is indeed inoperable, despite some jurisdictions remaining subject to Section 3(c) preclearance). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: section declared unconstitutional

@Prototime:, as a courtesy, I'd like to draw your attention to a question I've just posed at Template talk:Infobox U.S. legislation#Declared unconstitutional?, regarding the best way to reflect the fact that a portion of the legislation has been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I had added "Section 4(b) (42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b)) struck down by the Supreme Court on June 25, 2013" under "Amendments", and you removed it with the comment "constitutional interpretations are not legislative amendments". While I understand the difference between legislative and judicial amendments, a declaration of unconstitutionality is still an amendment nevertheless, and I see no template documentation that narrowly restricts "amendments" only to those of the legislative variety.

I feel that the removed phrase has sufficient value to be included in the infobox somewhere, so I am seeking input on the best way to handle. I therefore invite you (and others) to contribute to the discussion on the above page. Thanks.  —Grollτech (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up @Grolltech:, I've responded there. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the input.  —Grollτech (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Preclearance & Shelby County

Since I was just reverted, a longer explanation before I un-revert. There is only one preclearance section of VRA and that is Section 5. When VRA was passed in 1965, the jurisdictions subject thereto were set by the formula in Section 4(b). When it was amended in 1972, the bail-in provisions of Section 3(c) were created. There is no difference between the type of pre-clearance based on how a jurisdiction becomes covered, since both Section (3)(c) and Section (4)(b) merely activate the provisions of Section 5. I hope that this is clear; certainly, my citations explain it better and more fully. Czrisher (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation, but there are actually two preclearance provisions in the VRA, Section 5 and Section 3(c), and they do indeed operate separately and differently. Below is the text of Section 3(c), which you will see includes its own preclearance language, and it differs from Section 5 in that a court imposes the preclearance, lifts the preclearance, and has the ability to narrow preclearance to only certain types of voting changes. Nowhere in Section 3(c) is Section 5 incorporated by reference at all (or vice versa); rather, "bail in" under 3(c) also triggers preclearance under 3(c):

Section 3(c): "If in any proceeding instituted by the Attorney General or an aggrieved person under any statute to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment in any State or political subdivision the court finds that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred within the territory of such State or political subdivision, the court, in addition to such relief as it may grant, shall retain jurisdiction for such period as it may deem appropriate and during such period no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect at the time the proceeding was commenced shall be enforced unless and until the court finds that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the voting guarantees set forth in section 1973b (f)(2) of this title: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the court’s finding nor the Attorney General’s failure to object shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure."

You may also be interested in this article, which discusses the difference between bail-in preclearance and Section 5 preclearance at length (and is used as a source here): http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Voting+Rights+Act's+secret+weapon%3a+pocket+trigger+litigation+and...-a0231092159 –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I recently realized that we are actually citing different versions of the same source (Crum). However, the source itself recognizes the difference between Section 3(c) preclearance and Section 5 preclearance; the article argues that even if Section 5 were struck down, Section 3(c) preclearance should survive. This argument would make little sense if Section 3(c)'s utility were entirely tied to Section 5's validity. Note in particular statements from Crum like "The preclearance language of section 3 mirrors section 5", which emphasizes that Section 3(c) has its own preclearance language separate from Section 5. Also note this statement from Crum: "Because the pocket trigger lacks many of section 5’s alleged constitutional infirmities, it can serve as a model for a modern Voting Rights Act. Given its constitutional trigger, targeted preclearance, and flexible bailout, section 3 is more congruent and proportional than section 5. Quite simply, it is far more likely to survive the Supreme Court." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I owe Prototime and others an apology as I was in error and Prototime was and is correct. I appreciation the correction. Czrisher (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Glad we cleared things up. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

James Eastland

Senator Eastland is referred to as a Republican from Georgia. In fact, he was a Democrat from Mississippi. Dougmock7 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I've fixed the error. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bringing to Good Article status

Content proposals

In the coming weeks (probably stretching well into August November sometime in the first quarter of 2014), I'd like to work with whoever else is interested in bringing this article up to Good Article status. While some major improvements in organization and content have been made to the article in the aftermath of Shelby County v. Holder, much work needs to be done. I'm very interested in hearing what others think we can do to improve the article. Below is a list of proposals for improving the article:

1. Shortening the lead to an appropriate length per WP:LEADLENGTH  Done
2. Integrating the content in the "Criticisms" section into other parts of the article, updating it, and removing some outdated material (e.g., the entire bit about Rick Scott not submitting Florida constitutional amendments for preclearance has long since passed -- the amendments have since been submitted without issue)  Done
3. Expanding the "Legislative History" section to include information on the amendments to the Act. Part of this would include merging the "Renewal" section into this material, and another part would include adding information that simply isn't there, such as how Section 2 was amended in 1982 to create the "results" test (though this does get a brief mention later in the article).  Done
4. As noted by Khazar2 below, including more information about the historical context and important events relating to of the VRA's:
   1. Background  Done
   2. Initial passage  Done
   3. Amendments/reauthorizations  Done

   Examples of this type of content include contemporary arguments for and against the bill, Johnson's thinking in proposing it, who its main opponents were, reactions to its passage, etc.

5. Adding material about the impact of the law.  Done
6. Expanding the "General prohibition" section (about Section 2 of the VRA) to discuss leading case law, especially in the area of vote dilution. Cases like Thornburg v. Gingles and Johnson v. DeGrandy immediately come to mind, though there are others as well. Distinction should be made between vote denial and vote dilution, and also the different types of cognizable vote dilution (gerrymandering, majority vote requirements, etc.).  Done
7. Discussing the concept of "retrogression" under Section 5 more thoroughly, and also updating that information (the article incorrectly states that "retrogressive purpose" is required under Section 5, which is no longer true as of the 2006 amendments, which now allow any discriminatory purpose to be prohibited by Section 5--although "retrogressive effect" remains)
8. Expanding the information on the history of Section 5's constitutionality by including information on South Carolina v. Katzenbach, City of Rome, and Lopez v. Monterey County, and Northwest Austin.  Done
9. Discussing the constitutionality of Section 2 -- especially Mississippi Republican Executive Committee v. Brooks, and briefly what lower courts have done.  Done
10. Discussing the constitutionality of the literacy test prohibitions.  Done
11. Expanding upon the "racial gerrymandering" material to discuss leading cases under the Equal Protection Clause that limit drawing district lines using racial considerations under Section 2 and Section 5. In particular, discussing the tests that came out of Shaw v. Reno, Miller v. Johnson, Bush v. Vera combined. This material should be moved into a subsection under the "Constitutionality" section.  Done
12. Expanding information on the bail-out provision.  Done
13. Expanding information on the bail-in provision.  Done
14. Including information on the provisions of the Act that come after Section 5, such as specific prohibitions and bilingual election requirements. (This proposal tests limits to my own knowledge since I am primarily familiar with Sections 2 through 5, so it'd be great if someone with more knowledge of the other sections could take the lead on this. However, I am more than willing to learn if no one else steps up to the plate.)

Update (06:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)) I have taken up the task of adding this post-Section 5 information to the article. This includes provisions related to:

1. Federal examiners and observers.  Done
2. Bilingual election requirement.  Done
3. Specific prohibitions:
   1. Tests and devices  Done
   2. Poll taxes  Done
   3. Accommodations for voters with disabilities.  Done
   4. Voter intimidation/vote denial  Done
4. Rewrite lead to summarize article as currently written.  Done

Any thoughts on these proposals, or any other ideas? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Count me in as a non-expert assistant; I don't know the history or the law well enough to doublecheck independently on content, but I'll be happy to follow your lead, consult, and help with formatting, copyediting, and any other issues that may arise.

I think your proposed expansion sounds really good. I'd add that ideally the article would be expanded with both direct citations to case law and citations to secondary sources discussing that case law; that way we can demonstrate that we're putting forward the (or at least an) accepted interpretation. I've found Encyclopedia of the American Constitution and some other sources to be helpful in this regard; I have access to them through Highbeam if you ever want me to doublecheck anything or plug in a secondary citation.

I'd also add to your list that another 2-3 paragraphs of the history aspects here would be helpful--contemporary arguments for and against the bill, what was Johnson's thinking in proposing it, who were its main opponents, reactions to its passage, etc. Many (perhaps most) readers will be coming here as much to learn about it as a piece of history as well as a piece of law, if that distinction makes sense.

Thanks for taking this one on! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and offer to help; I definitely agree with what you've said, particularly the need for secondary sources and also more information on the historical context of the VRA and reactions to it, which I have put up as another point in the list. I do have some access to secondary sources, but the article will probably need more, so your access to Highbeam will probably be quite useful! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'll be watching here, but feel free to ping me directly too whenever I can pitch in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Structuring "Provisions" section

I'd like to propose restructing the "Provisions" section (which was actually recently split into two sections by an editor) so that it's structured topically instead of by Section of the VRA. There are so many Sections of the VRA that the article will become unwieldy if each Section of the VRA has its own subheading in this article. Furthermore, many Sections of the VRA have Subsections that discuss different topics and don't necessarily flow well together when presented under a Section-oriented structure. Here's how I propose to topically structure the "Provisions" section using subheadings, subject to some tweaking:

• Provisions
  • General prohibition of discriminatory voting laws [discuss Section 2]
  • Specific prohibitions of discriminatory voting laws [discuss various provisions, such as Sections 10, 11, etc.]
  • Preclearance
    • Process [discuss Section 5]
    • Coverage [discuss 4]
    • Bail out [discuss Section 4]
    • Bail in [discuss Section 3]
  • Enforcement [discuss various provisions, notably Sections 3, 12, 14]

–Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough detail here to comment specifically on this proposed structure, but the principle of what you're proposing makes sense to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've done ahead and made the changes, and also some other organizational shifts reflective of points 2 and 3 on the list of proposals. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

While keeping the Provisions section organized in a topical manner, I have made some further adjustments, splitting the section into two subsections to reflect common parlance: one subsection for the Act's "general" provisions, which apply nationwide; and another subsection for the Act's "special" provisions, which apply only to jurisdictions encompassed by the (now unconstitutional) coverage formula. I have also created a sub-subsection on "Federal examiners and observers", given that these are key special provisions. I may do some further structural tinkering as I tackle the content of the provisions section. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I recently added a new sub-subsection on "Bilingual election requirements", as these, too, are critical special provisions that shouldn't be overlooked in the article. At this point, I would say the Provisions section is satisfactorily structured to cover all of the law's major provisions. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominating for GA status

After several months of working on the article, I am nominating it for Good Article status. This article has evolved quite a bit from the version just before the Shelby County decision was announced last July 25 (diff) and today's version (diff). A summary of the changes made is contained in the above #Bringing to Good Article status section. To my knowledge, the article now covers all major substantive points related to the Voting Rights Act. It is a bit on the large side now, though the size of the law and its 50 year history may justify it. Anyway, I look forward to working with a GA reviewer (and others who may wish to contribute!) on further improvements. Hopefully we will soon see this article promoted to GA! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voting Rights Act of 1965/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RJaguar3 (talk · contribs) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the next couple of days. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference check and WP:WTW issues are based on a review of this revision. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Some grammar/spelling errors that need to be corrected: "which is desicribed Section 4(b)" in paragraph 3 of the lede should be "which is described in Section 4(b)"; "voter roles" in paragraph 5 of the "Background" section should be "voter rolls"; "Malcom X" is misspelled (paragraph 8 of "Background" section); "southern" should be capitalized in the last paragraph of "Legislative History: Original Bill: Senate", as it refers to the U.S. region; "en mass" in the "Impact" section, paragraph 3, should be "en masse"; "the Supreme Court upheld the provision Oregon v. Mitchell" should be "the Supreme Court upheld the provision in Oregon v. Mitchell";. The constitutional citation is usually not written "Article 1, Section III" ("Legislative History: Original Bill: Senate", paragraph 5); it should be written "Article I, section 3" (see this page on how to cite constitutions in Bluebook). Also, the terms "disfranchisement" and "disenfranchisement" appear to be used interchangeably; it may be better to stick with one term, the same holds for "black" and "African American". Also, in one of the case citations, the footnote appears between the case caption and the year, while the others have the date after the year.

    Done - also fixed "southern" elsewhere as appropriate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

   See #Other notes.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   All are good except for WP:WTW; see #Criterion 1(b)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   This criterion is satisfied

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   See #Reference spot-check (Criterion 2(b))

   C. No original research:

   I did not find original research, but to the extent that I found sources not to support the claims referenced, those are also indicated in #Reference spot-check (Criterion 2(b))

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Most major aspects are covered by the article. Whether or not the article includes information about the VRAA of 2014, this criterion is passed.

   B. Focused:

   84 kilobytes of readable prose, according to prosesize.js. I don't think the article gets bogged down in excessive detail, so this is fine.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here, especially given the topic of the article which can result in politically and racially charged discussion.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold to allow the issues to be addressed.

I will continue the review after I get some of the books used as references in the article (which should be by this weekend). RJaguar3 | u | t 15:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you need help with accessing sources, let me know and I'll see what I can do. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Update

First of all, I would like to apologize for not getting the references checked in a timely manner. I think all of the books are in my local library, but I haven't had the chance to sit down and go through them. I should get this done today or tomorrow.

Second, the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 was introduced this week. I do not know whether you want to update the article to reflect the VRAA before I review it or not; it is your call. If you don't want to review update it, I will still mark it as covering the major aspects of the article (criterion 3a) (see WP:GA?).

Thank you for your patience. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@RJaguar3: Thanks for the update and for your persistence in reviewing the article; I understand getting access to offline sources can be time consuming. I did see the VRAA of 2014 was introduced this week, but I haven't determined how best to integrate that fact into the article yet, so I may hold off a while longer (and it probably will only get a sentence or two tops until it starts to work its way through the legislative process). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi RJaguar3, I was wondering if you've had any luck tracking down the offline sources over the past couple of weeks? Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Prototime, I have finished the review and am placing the article on hold. Thanks again for your patience and your hard work in developing this important article; you can go ahead and ping me once you have addressed the issues. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough comments, RJaguar! This is fantastic feedback and well worth the wait. I especially appreciate you taking the time to point out ways to fix or enhance the article even though not required by the GA criteria. I will begin addressing the issues tomorrow. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

One further note: I will work through what I can during the weekdays, but I have a loaded schedule this week, so I probably won't have time to address most of the issues until this weekend. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@RJaguar3: I understand the 7-day hold period is about to expire, and I haven't quite finished addressing everything you've pointed out. But I am not far from completing things, and I'm confident that I can address all of the remaining issues this week. Would you be able to extend the hold period for an additional 7 days? I'd greatly appreciate it. And thanks again for the thorough review. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that is not a problem. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

RJaguar3, I believe I have addressed all of the outstanding issues. I'm happy to make any clarifications or address any further issues. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dead-link notes

(these do not need to be fixed under WP:GA?, but these are provided for reference) [7] http://harvardlawreview.org/issues/123/november09/Leading_Case_6597.php (link to PDF on target page is broken)

 Done - I had to toy around with the URL, but I figured out the PDF's address and included it in the cite. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Criterion 1(b)

Location in article	Quote	Comments
Introduction, paragraph 1	"It is widely considered one of the most effective pieces of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the United States."	This is WP:WEASEL as written. However, it is referring to a source saying that "The Voting Rights Act itself has been called the single most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by Congress." I would suggest adding in-text attribution to the United States Department of Justice: "According to the United States Department of Justice, the Voting Rights Act..."
Background, paragraph 5	"local election officials, who 'lost' records"	WP:SCAREQUOTES. I note that [18] (the source on which the paragraph is based) also uses scarequotes, suggesting that registrars pretended to lose records to hinder cases. Perhaps explicitly stating this instead is better? Alternatively, you could quote [18] directly, in which case WP:SCAREQUOTES does not apply.
Background, paragraph 8	"He gave a militant speech in which he noted that other civil rights leaders did not believe in King's nonviolent approach"	WP:SAY. Original quote (as printed in [24], p. 262) reads "the white people should thank Dr. King for holding people in check, for there are other [black leaders] who do not believe in these [nonviolent] measures."

 Done with all three. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference spot-check (Criterion 2(b))

Location in article	Quote	Comments
Introduction, paragraph 1	"Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections."	This is not likely to be challenged (and is discussed in the body of the article), so no action is needed on this sentence to pass GA. I will note that [8] only lists four amendments (omitting 1992). [9] does not mention amendments. Noted. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Introduction, paragraph 3	"The most litigated special provision is Section 5"	I couldn't find the statistic in the citation.  Done I removed that phrase. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Background, paragraph 1	"As initially ratified, the United States Constitution granted each state complete discretion to determine voting qualifications for its residents"	Possible original research; can you find a secondary source for this? I would suggest [23], p. 50, which I found while reference-checking.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Background, paragraph 7	"Following the 1964 elections, civil rights organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) worked to push for the passage of stronger federal legislation that would protect the voting rights of racial minorities despite the defiance of local officials."	I couldn't find this in [24], p. 258. I changed the page reference to 254-255, and replaced "federal legislation" with "federal action" to be more accurate. The sentence has no direct equivalent in [24], but its components are supported by page 254, 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph (timing after 1964 elections); page 255, the first two complete sentences on the page (SNCC pushing for federal intervention); and page 255, the fourth paragraph (discussing King's plans for SCLC to push for federal intervention). If the sentence still requires more direct attribution, I'll see what else I can find. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC) No, that's fine for sourcing. I was a bit thrown off because the source mentioned King and not the SCLC, but the sentences you mentioned do support the text. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Background, paragraph 8	"'Letter From A Selma Jail', appeared in the New York Times."	Not GA-necessary, but I note this appears at the bottom of p. 262 in my copy of [24], not p. 263.  Done - It was actually 262 in mine as well. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 1	"the party could overcome a filibuster by a two-thirds vote if it remained united."	This is misleading. [23] makes no mention (I could find) of the possibility of overcoming a filibuster with Democrats alone. Indeed, as the rest of the paragraph illustrates, Republicans were approached to support the bill to prevent a Southern Democrat filibuster.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 1	"After Mansfield and Dirksen introduced the legislation, 64 Senators agreed to cosponsor it."	This is unclear whether the VRA had 64 sponsors including Mansfield and Dirksen or 66 sponsors (Mansfield, Dirksen, and 64 others). [23] is not clear either; it states "Mansfield had hoped for at least fifty cosponsors, so he was pleased when sixty-four senators joined them [...] almost enough to invoke cloture" (p. 150).  Done Looking at it now, I believe the statement "sixty-four senators joined them" (with the "them" clearly referring to Mansfield and Dirksen in context) indicates that it was 64 Senators in addition to Dirksen and Mansfield. To reflect that, I've added the words "with them" to the sentence in the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 2	first sentence	[18], p. 519 (and the first part of p. 520) is a reprint of South Carolina v. Katzenbach. To the extent you want to use the opinion as a source, it may be better to cite directly to the Supreme Court opinion. (not GA-necessary)  Done Thanks. Katzenbach itself wasn't really a necessary source for that statement, which is mostly attributed to the bottom of page 520 in the book, so I simply removed "519" from the citation's page range. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 3	"Additionally, the bill included a "bail in" provision, under which federal courts could subject discriminatory non-covered jurisdictions to remedies contained in the special provisions."	I couldn't find a reference to bail-in (other than reopening a bailout judgment) in reference [27].  Done I replaced that citation with a citation to Section 3(c) of Public Law 89-110 (the original VRA, before amended) to show that the bail-in provision existed in the original legislation, and for a secondary source to explain that provision in terms of "bail-in", I cited to Crum's article on bail-in. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 5	"Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) retorted that the bill would lead to 'tyranny and despotism'"	[23] (p. 154) says "[Southern die-hards] insisted that the bill, in Senator Strom Thurmond's words, would lead to 'despotism and tyranny'", the reverse order of the quote in the article.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 5	"Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) argued that the bill was unconstitutional because it deprived states of their right under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to establish voting qualifications."	[23] (p. 155) refers to "Article 1, Section 2", not Section 3.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 5	"45 Democrats and 22 Republicans voting against it"	[23] (p. 156) says "Forty-two Democrats (including five southerners) voted no, and Dirksen was able to deliver twenty-two Republicans to join them."  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 6	"only Senators representing Southern states voted against it"	Not GA-necessary, but I note that the statement is sourced to [23] p. 161 in my version, not p. 160.  Done That is actually true in my version as well. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Conference committee	"This broke the logjam"	[23] (p. 167) reads "King's declaration broke the logjam", but the paraphrased sentence in the article does not cite [23] as a source.  Done - Also rephrased that a bit to avoid too-close paraphrasing. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 1970, paragraph 1	"prior to 1970, covered jurisdictions made only 578 preclearance submissions"	I could not find this statistic in [27], the only source cited in the paragraph. The statistic can be found on page 8, footnote 37 (second sentence). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 1975, paragraph 3	"Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX) successfully led an effort to amend the Voting Rights Act to protect language minorities."	I couldn't find this in [27].  Done Replaced source with Bending Toward Justice, page 211 –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) OK, found it. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 1982, paragraph 3	"The decision had a major effect on voting rights litigation; lower courts overturned many judgments that had been previously entered in favor of plaintiffs, and civil rights organizations dropped many planned cases."	I couldn't find this in [46], p. 149 I slightly rearranged and reworded that sentence, hopefully to better match the information in the source (Armand Derfner). The supporting text in the source is the second paragraph on page 149, which states "The result of the Mobile decision was devastating. Dilution cases came to a virtual standstill; existing cases were overturned and dismissed, while plans for new cases were abandoned." Is the new wording now sufficiently supported by the source? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 1	"Civil rights organizations advocated for the renewal and strengthening of the special provisions."	Probably not likely to be challenged, but I would like to point out that I couldn't find it at the given source and page ([51], p. 206) The part of the source intended to support this phrase is the first sentence of the first full paragraph on p. 206, which reads "Against this backdrop, a broad coalition of civil rights groups, grassroots organizations, and voting rights advocates sought not only to renew the VRA’s expiring provisions, but to strengthen them." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Are we referring to the same source? The first sentence of the first full paragraph on p. 206 in Tucker, "Enfranchising Language Minority Citizens: The Bilingual Election Provisions of the Voting Rights Act", as found in the article's hyperlink says "The 1965 Act focused primarily on remedying voting discrimination against African Americans in the South." Also, I just noticed in checking that there's a problem with the formatting of the name in the reference: it should read "Tucker, James Thomas", and the year listed in the PDF is 2006 (though this may be moot if the paper linked is not the paper you are citing). No objection to the sourcing if I can find the paragraph you quoted above. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC) I figured out the problem; the article cites multiple articles by Tucker, and two of them shared the same reference name, so one of the references was accidentally replaced by the other. I've fixed that now, so this issue and the next two issues should be properly sourced now. I also fixed the name and date on the other source, thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you for finding and fixing the problem. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 1	"Furthermore, conservatives noted that the primary beneficiaries of the special provisions were African Americans, who overwhelmingly and increasingly voted for Democratic Party candidates."	Again, I could not find this in [51], p. 207. The first full paragraph on page 207 of the source is intended to support this sentence. The first part of the sentence is meant to be supported by the first two sentences of that paragraph in the source, which say "Many conservatives criticized the special provisions of the Act for benefiting the Democratic Party. There was some evidence to support their conclusion. Black voters were the primary beneficiaries of the 1965 Act, with most southern states covered by Section 5 of the Act to prevent discrimination against them." The source then goes on to discuss African American voting trends in presidential races, stating that most African American voters have voted for Democratic candidates (support for using the word "overwhelmingly") and that Bush received less African American votes than Republicans before him (support for using the word "increasingly"). Is this sufficient attribution, or should I look for additional support? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) We are probably using different sources. See above. No objection if I can find the paragraph in the source. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Should be properly sourced now, per above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 1	"However, Republicans were receiving increasing support from some language minority groups, particularly Hispanics and Asian Americans, and they did not wish to risk losing that support by refusing to reauthorize the special provisions"	Could not find this in [51], p. 208 The parts of the source intended to support this sentence are located in the first two full paragraphs on page 208 of the source. In particular, the mention of increasing Republican support from Asian Americans is meant to be supported by the first two sentences, and the last sentence, of the first full paragraph in the source, which say "On the other hand, Republicans had made substantial inroads among other language minority voters. In the 2004 election, estimates of support for President Bush among the 2.7 million Asian voters ranged from one estimate of twenty-four percent to forty-four percent in the NEP." and "Neither party could afford to ignore the growing political power of Asian voters ..." The mention of increasing Republican support from Hispanics is meant to be supported by the second full paragraph, such as the first sentence: "Republican efforts to win the rapidly increasing Latino vote also paid dividends." The idea that Republicans did not wish to alienate Hispanic and Asian-American voters by refusing to reauthorize the special provisions is supported by the last sentence of the second full paragraph in the source: "If Republicans wanted to continue to win over Asian and Latino voters, it seemed apparent they would have to support reauthorization." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Again, we probably are using different sources. See above. No objection if I can find the paragraph you are quoting. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Should be properly sourced now, per above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 3	"One group of legislators, led by Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R–GA), argued that the reauthorization unfairly targeted certain jurisdictions and continued to punish and stigmatize jurisdictions for long-past discrimination."	There is no source for this sentence. I tried looking at [55], the source for the following sentence, but Westmoreland was not there.  Done I added two sources - a NYT article discusses Lynn's views, and a USA Today article also discussing Lynn's views and characterizing him as an anti-renewal "leader". I did trim some of the text concerning "punish and stigmatize", as that particular wording wasn't used in either of the sources. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 4	"However, in an unprecedented event for a bill that passed unanimously"	I couldn't find any mention at p. 178 of [52]. Perhaps it is implied by pp. 186 to 189, which supports the next passage. The sentence on p. 178 of the source intended to support this phrase is near the bottom of the page; it reads "Never before in American history, however, has a Senate committee that unanimously voted in favor of a law later published a postenactment committee report that was supported only by members of one party." I did rearrange and reword the text a bit to better indicate that page 178 only refers to the fact that the unprecedented aspect was that the bill passed unanimously out of committee but had only members of one political party sign the committee report. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC) OK. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: General prohibition of discriminatory voting laws, paragraph 1	"The Supreme Court has allowed private plaintiffs to sue to enforce this prohibition"	There is a link to the published version of [59] at http://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol44p113.pdf. No action is required on this for GA status, though.  Done Noted and changed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: General prohibition of discriminatory voting laws, paragraph 9	"A plurality of the justices said that requiring such proof would violate Congress's intent to make Section 2 a "results" test, but Justice White maintained that the proof was necessary to show that the election scheme resulted in racial discrimination."	The citation is to [79], pp. 355-357. Did you mean pp. 555-557?  Done Indeed I did; fixed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Note c	"The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that challenges to majority-vote requirements under Section 2 are not cognizable, while the Eastern District of Arkansas held the opposite."	In the citation, did you mean [18], pp. 752-753?  Done Yes, thanks for catching that. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Specific prohibitions, paragraph 2	"Section 11(d) prohibits voting twice in a federal election."	Section 11(d) as enacted reads "Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of an examiner or hearing officer knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." Are you referring to section 11(e) (42 USC 1973i(e))?  Done Yep... probably a slip of the finger when typing. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Bail in, paragraph 3	"several of them, such as New Mexico, have since had their bail-in status lifted"	I couldn't find a clear statement about New Mexico's bail-in status being lifted in [95]. The closest I could find was that New Mexico entered into a consent decree in 1984 requiring preclearance for a decade, and the Attorney General objected to its 1991 redistricting.  Done Yes, I can see how that might be based on too much of an interpretation of the source. I;ve deleted that quote. In the preceding paragraph, I've added text concerning New Mexico that it was ordered into bail-in for 10 years, but left it open as to whether the bail-in actually expired at that time, since the source doesn't address whether the original order was ever modified. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) New Mexico was bailed in based on a consent order in December 1984, not 1990. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Bail in, paragraph 3	"As of 2013, 17 jurisdictions remained subject to bail-in."	There are 18 jurisdictions listed on 1a-3a under the title "Jurisdictions That Have Been Ordered by a District Court to Comply With Preclearance Requirement Pursuant to Bail-in Mechanism in Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act". There is no indication in the brief that all 18 jurisdictions remained subject to preclearance as of 2013.  Done I also added a brief mention that Evergreen, Alabama was bailed in last month. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Bail in, paragraph 3	"additional jurisdictions may be bailed in."	Source [98] is hosted on Yahoo! News, not NPR, as stated in the reference. (Not GA-necessary to fix this.)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Bail in, paragraph 4	"Under this provision, the District Court for DC may certify a non-covered jurisdiction to receive federal observers if the court determines that the jurisdiction violated the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments."	According to [100], any federal court is allowed to appoint observers, not just the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Coverage formula, paragraph 2	"The types of jurisdictions that the coverage formula applies to include states and "political subdivisions" of states, which includes local governments that register people to vote (usually counties)."	I could only find this alluded to in [94]; can you find a better (more directly stated) source for this definition?  Done I've replaced that with a sourced quote from the relevant provision in the VRA. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Reference [106] (cited in note d)	"Hathorn v. Lavorn"	The correct case name (as appears in [18]) is Hathorn v. Lovorn  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Federal examiners and observers, paragraph 3	"By 2006, the federal examiner provision was used solely as a means to appoint federal observers."	The page in [100] is 239, not 238 (not GA-necessary).  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Federal examiners and observers, paragraph 3	"The goal of the federal observer provision is to facilitate minority voter participation by deterring and documenting instances of discriminatory conduct in the election process, such as denying qualified minority persons the ability to cast a ballot, intimidation or harassment voters on election day, or improper vote counting"	Check the page number. (not GA-necessary)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Federal examiners and observers, paragraph 3	"Since 1965, the Attorney General has certified 164 jurisdictions to receive federal observers, including 11 states and 153 local governments."	I don't think this correctly interprets [116]. The 11 states mentioned appear to be states where at least one county was certified for federal observers, not a list of states that have been certified for federal observers in their entirety. It would be more accurate to say "The Attorney General has certified 153 counties in 11 states to receive federal observers."  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) The article still refers to a total of 164, which is misleading and redundant. I would simply remove it. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Federal examiners and observers, paragraph 3	"Given time and resource constraints, federal observers are not appointed to every certified jurisdiction for every election."	The page number is wrong; the sentence can be sourced by p. 230 (not GA-necessary)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Bail out, paragraph 4	"Between this date and 2013, 196 jurisdictions bailed out of coverage through 38 bailout actions; in each instance, the Attorney General consented to the bailout request."	Not GA-necessary, but the {{rp}} template appears to have gotten caught in the reference.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Bail out, paragraph 4	"Between 1984 and 2009, all jurisdictions that bailed out were located in Virginia."	For accuracy, this sentence should use August 5, 1984 (the date of the amendment) as the starting date, as three non-Virginia jurisdictions bailed-out in 1984 before August.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Bilingual election requirements, list of elements after paragraph 2	"A single language minority is present that has an English illiteracy rate higher than the national average; and [e]ither: The number of 'limited-English proficient' members of the language minority group is at least 10,000, or it comprises at least 5% of the jurisdiction's population..."	This should be rewritten to refer to voting-age citizens as per the source, [94].  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Impact, paragraph 2	"Starting in the 1970s, the Attorney General commonly interposed Section 5 preclearance objections to dilutive annexations, redistricting plans, and election methods such as at-large election systems, runoff election requirements, and prohibitions on bullet voting. In total, 81% (2,541) of precleareance objections made between 1965 and 2006 were based on vote dilution grounds"	The page number does not exist in [108]. The first sentence can be sourced to pp. 105-106. Where did you find the statistic cited in the second sentence?  Done It's in the same source (Posner), though the page numbers were messed up. I fixed them; the first sentence is now associated with pp. 105-106, and the second sentence is sourced to p. 102. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC) OK. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Impact, paragraph 3	"with the Republican Party controlling most of Southern politics."	Not GA-necessary, as the statement is unlikely to be challenged, but I couldn't find this in [23] at p. 203. The sentences intended to support this phrase on p. 203 of the source are "Johnson had worried that the Voting Rights Act would destroy the Democrats’ control of the South, and the Republicans had begun to make inroads there as early as 1968. By the mid- to late 1990s, excepting southern Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the South would belong to the Republicans for the rest of the twentieth century and beyond." It might not be quite the cleanest support, but I do agree with you that the phrase is pretty unlikely to be challenged anyway. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC) OK. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Other notes

• "Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the Act's 'coverage formula', which is described Section 4(b)": "described" still needs to be changed to "described in"

   Done - and swapped "described" with "prescribed", as I figure that's more accurate considering it's a legal requirement. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• "new jurisdictions may come into coverage while others may have their coverage termination": "termination" should be "terminated"

   Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• bail-in and bail-out terminology (especially hyphenation) needs to be consistent.

   Done I made some changes and I think I've fixed this now, but feel free to let me know if you think it's incorrect. This is what I've done:

  Concerning "bailout", when used as a noun or adjective (e.g., "bailout procedure"), I've kept it as one word, since "bailout" is a common noun.source When used as a verb, I've spelled it out as two words (e.g., "allow a local government to bail out of coverage"). source And I've dropped the hyphen entirely, except where the term is being used as an adjective in the past tense (e.g., "bailed-out jurisdiction"), since it is a compound adjective

  Concerning "bail in", there is no single-word noun like there is for "bailout", so to indicate its status as a singular concept when using it as a noun or adjective, I've spelled it with the hyphen "bail-in". Where used as a verb, I've dropped the hyphen (analogous to the verb "bail out"). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Some references use {{rp}}; others put the page number in the reference footnote. Consistency in this would improve the article.

 Done - All references should now use {{rp}}. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Listed

All issues have been fixed, so I am listing this article as a good article. Congratulations to Prototime and all the other contributors for their efforts in developing and improving the article, and I hope to see this article appear on the main page as a featured article in the future. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you, RJaguar3! I am deeply appreciative of your dedication in reviewing this article. Thank you for taking the time to find the offline and paywall sources and in offering such a comprehensive review. It's been a pleasure working with you! I, too, hope to see this article appear on the main page in the future. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for Featured Article status

After a comprehensive GA review and further polishing, this article has been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. All editors are encouraged to leave feedback on its nomination! Feedback is welcome regardless of whether if it's big or small, including feedback on only one or a couple aspects of the article. The nomination has been live for a few weeks now, but there's been little feedback thus far, so any amount of feedback you can contribute would be greatly appreciated. The nomination page is located here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1. Thank you! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The article has achieved Featured Article status! It's been a fun journey. Thanks to all who offered feedback over the last several months. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Parkwells: Thank you for your recent edits improving the article. I did revert some of your changes due to prose consistency and sourcing concerns, and I wanted to explain my reasons here for you:

• "where they had been prevented from voting by the subjective administration of state laws." - Unsourced and underinclusive, as many things prevented enfranchisement beyond subjective enforcement
• "Pre-clearance" - the article and its sources consistently spell this word without a hyphen
• " In its last renewal of the legislation in 2006, it did not update the formula." - redundant to the previous sentence, misleading because Congress only reauthorized the special provisions (not the entire piece of legislation), and also an example of WP:RECENTISM because Congress also did not update the formula in 1982 and 1992.
• "but African Americans continued to be elected to local offices and, in some cases, to the US Congress" - not contained in the existing source; no new source provided
• "were found to engage" - much more unnecessary verbiage than simply saying "engaged"
• " that were still used against minorities" - superfluous
• "Local organizers asked for help from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which had been successful in staging major campaigns." redundant to the first sentence of the previous paragraph; also WP:OVERLINK
• "black people" - the article consistently uses the term "African Americans"
• "54 miles" - figure not provided in existing source; no new source provided
• "important televised address" - "televised" is fine, but "important" is opinionated
• " having invited " - this does not say whether the invitees actually intended, which the previous version made clear
• "apply only to" - Grammar (split infinitive); restored to "apply to only"
• "In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 to create a "results" test, which prohibits any voting law that has a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether the law appeared to be enacted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose." - This is not the correct legal standard. The Constitution requires proof of the existence of discriminatory purpose, not merely the appearance of it.
• "in recognition of the needs of the many immigrants from non-English speaking nations who had entered the United States." - this reasoning is not contained in the existing source; no new source provided
• " 'Bartlett v. Strickland' " - The title of the source does not contain the ' marks you inserted.
• "overtly discriminatory purpose" - again, not the legal standard. Intentional discrimination can be either overt or covert, and either way it's unconstitutional (unlike unintentional discrimination, which is prohibited only by Section 2)
• " a jurisdiction is unlikely to be liable for vote dilution if its redistricting plan contains a number of majority-minority districts that are proportional to the minority group's population." - Grammar. The subject is singular ("a number"), so the linking verb should be as well ("is")
• "But," - Grammar. When starting a sentence with a conjunction, it should not be followed by a comma.
• "After its enactment in 1965, the law immediately decreased racial discrimination in voter registration, enabling many more minorities to register and then to vote." - The law decreased racial discrimination not only in voter registration, but also in polling place access and in ensuring that votes were counted.
• I reverted your edits to the "Impact" section because they mostly comprised of statements that were either entirely unsourced, such as the claims about the Great Migration and women, or misattributed to existing sources, such as the claim that Democrats remain competitive in some Southern localities.

Thank you again for your edits. Outside of this, I mostly kept them intact. But please keep in mind that this is a Featured Article; edits should maintain a consistent prose style and substantive claims should be properly sourced. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A brief mention, the 54 mile distance of the Selma to Montgomery march is well recorded and sourced, and is used consistently on Wikipedia. Thanks again for your focus, work on, and protection of this important (my opinionated opinion) page. Randy Kryn 11:07 20 March, 2015 (UTC)

"Qualification" vs "Eligibility"

I reverted an edit that substituted the term "eligibility" for "qualification." In the context of the voting rights debates of the 1960s, "eligibility" generally referred to meeting impersonal, demographic-type, voting requirements such as citizenship and age. "Qualification" referred to the concept that beyond citizenship and a minimum age, voting should be restricted to those who met some additional standard as an individual such as the ability to pass a "literacy test" or that their grandfather had been eligible to vote (the "grandfather clause"). The voting rights act did not address eligibility requirements, but did overturn arbitrary state-mandated "qualifications." Brucehartford (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To help address this, I've rewritten it to say "qualifications and prerequisites to voting", which I believe cover both concepts to which you refer. There is debate right now in federal courts (principally in Kobach v. Elections Assistance Commission) about what constitutes a "qualification" and what, if anything, constitutes a "procedural prerequisite" (with the former referring to the impersonal voting requirements you mention, like citizenship, age, residency, felon status, etc.; and procedural prerequisites referring to things like voter registration, possession of voter ID, etc.). The Supreme Court may soon determine with finality whether what some courts refer to as "procedural prerequisites" are in fact different from "qualifications". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Recording this Article (Wikipedia Spoken Articles)

Hello,

I would like to record this article for the Wikipedia Spoken Articles project. How do I go about this?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Cheers, Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarabe tapatio (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voting Rights Act of 1965. 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/20170709180934/https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps73404/indexlps73404.htm to https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps73404/indexlps73404.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Voting Rights Act of 1965. 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/20130830171847/http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/note/the-voting-rights-act%27s-secret-weapon:-pocket-trigger-litigation-and-dynamic-preclearance/ to http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/note/the-voting-rights-act%27s-secret-weapon:-pocket-trigger-litigation-and-dynamic-preclearance
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926061938/http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/article/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-the-new-voting-rights-act/ to http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/article/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-the-new-voting-rights-act/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)