Talk:For the People Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should title include 116th Congress if it was also reintroduced in the 117th Congress?

The title of the article includes 116th Congress, but the bill was also reintroduced in the 117th Congress. Should the title include 116th Congress, if that does not apply to both bills, and only the originally introduced bill? Greshthegreat (talk)

I think the article should be titled so it matches the title in both Congresses:

• H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019
• H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2021

Given this history, I suggest we change the name to "For the People Act".

I recommend we leave off the "H.R.1", because doing so would allow us to include discussion of any companion bill that might be introduced into the US Senate.

Also, I suggest we continue to stress in the lede that this is currently a bill, not an "act". DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The name of the article was actually titled "For the People Act" before user FeralOink changed it to it's current title, H.R. 1 (116th Congress) without discussing changing the title with other editors first. Should the article be reverted back to it's old title? Or would a different title be more fitting? What do you guys think? I don't want to make any changes to the title without discussing this first, only if other editors think it should be changed and what we agree the new title should be if it will be changed. Greshthegreat (talk)

Hi Greshthegreat, just saw your question on the teahouse and wanted to chime in to say I approve of this. The name "For the People Act" is used in the sources, and the alternatives which are used as well would create confusion as DavidMCEddy rightfully pointed out above. I see you've already done this, so this comment is just a note confirming that this is title indeed consensus :) --LordPeterII (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Grossly misleading title & article?

KristofferR This is a bill, not an act. See, for instance, Bill (United States Congress) versus Act of Congress. By naming the article an act, you are suggesting that it is an act, not merely a proposal for an act, and by doing so, grossly misleading the reader. Please amend the title and text to mirror reality. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That is the official short title included in the bill itself, but you're right, it's misleading. I've clarified that it is a proposed act. (KristofferR (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC))

Gerrymandering

One of the principal obstacles of proposals to turn congressional redistricting over to commissions is the argument that doing so is unconstitutional. This edit removed the background on that issue, including the question as to how the Supreme Court might respond. Does such an edit improve the reader’s understanding of this proposal? It is not “synthesis” given that the exact question is discussed in the sources provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This edit said that the short definition of gerrymandering that was supplied was “questionable” and suggested that the reader just refer to the linked Wikipedia article. The removed definition, however, was taken from that very article (but used the term “unfair advantage” instead of “political advantage”). Was this a useful edit? Swood100 (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References to Mitch McConnell

(i'm sure we all have our favored ways to describe mcconnell, but this description was taken directly from the cited source, so please don't modify and euphemize it;

Here’s your original quote:

“a consistent opponent of campaign-finance reform legislation and federal oversight of election integrity.”

I cannot find this in the cited source. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/us/politics/house-democrats-ethics-voting-rights.html Actually, this is the quote I found in that source: “But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, called much of it “probably” unconstitutional. He has been one of the Senate’s fiercest opponents of tightening campaign finance laws and forcing donor disclosures, and has generally opposed federal intervention in elections.”

Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The explanation is that I paraphrased a reliable source in a manner I think preserves both its meaning and spirit. In other words, I made an edit to Wikipedia. You've posted the source and my paraphrase side-by-side as if this is some sort of gotcha moment, but I don't understand what you don't understand about this. MastCell ^Talk 01:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

So when a report says that a senator is an opponent of (a) tightening campaign finance laws, (b) forcing donor disclosures, and (c) federal intervention in elections, the meaning and spirit of this is that the senator opposes election integrity?

The Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama held that "Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner's membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner's members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." But to you the requirement to disclose donors is unarguably indispensable to election integrity and you are certain that the Supreme Court would so hold? Do you have a source for this, as well as sources concluding as a factual matter that federal intervention in elections and the tightening of campaign laws of the type opposed by Sen. McConnell are necessary for election integrity and would be upheld by the Supreme Court? Swood100 (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

FEC

I've substantially shortened the FEC section, which read almost like a parody of POV-pushing. It violates our neutrality and due-weight policy, as it is essentially a lengthy exposition of the position of an obscure conservative think tank, and it includes extensive original synthesis as well. MastCell ^Talk 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

My purpose was to list as many arguments on each side as possible. What exactly is your objection? Is there a problem with listing arguments? Is it that arguments on the “oppose” side may not be listed because this gives undue weight to fringe beliefs? Is it that you believe that I listed more or better arguments for the “oppose” side, or that they took up more space? By my count I had nine against and eight for.

Oppose side:

1. The limitation to two members of a single political party is illusory given that an "independent" who caucuses with a major party would not count as a member of the major party.

2. Since the President would not be required to choose from among those recommended by the "Blue Ribbon" panel it is claimed that there is really no effective protection against his appointing a partisan majority, and that in any event the President would choose an advisory panel whose actions he could predict.

3. The only way to assure that there will not be a partisan majority is to have an equal number of partisans on each side. A “neutral” fifth person will end up voting for one side or the other.

4. Since President Nixon used the powers of government against political enemies there has been the belief that partisan control of the FEC should be avoided.

5. Moderate gridlock was built into the system and is a feature not a flaw, just as it was built into the Constitution by James Madison.

6. We should not have structures of government that make partisan excess likely.

7. Warnings of FEC dysfunction are way overblown and the FEC is enforcing the law so the risks of the proposed changes do not justify the promised benefits.

8. A partisan FEC would result in a reduction in the perceived legitimacy of the FEC (and therefore of our entire electoral system) since its actions would henceforth be viewed by the general public as intended to benefit one political party instead of the political system as a whole.

9. This bill would give the party winning the presidency in 2020 the ability to appoint a majority of the FEC through 2027. That party will have the opportunity to write and administer all new regulations under the proposed law, which would of course be designed to benefit that party in the 2022 midterms and in the presidential races of 2024 and 2028, a potentially enormous political advantage.

Support side:

1. Some advocates for reform have blamed the Republican members of the FEC for being unwilling to either investigate any potential violations or to impose tougher restrictions, and for loosening restrictions simply by signaling what standards they are willing to enforce.

2. Under the current structure the FEC is irretrievably deficient, falling way short of the minimum necessary for a healthy political system.

3. The current structure is unable to enforce even current campaign finance laws much less make them more effective, or to address pervasive violations such as workplace coercion.

4. This has resulted in a paralysis that has allowed $800 million in “dark money” to control our elections since Citizens United in 2010, thus betraying the public’s trust and endangering our democracy.

5. One former FEC commissioner went so far as to claim that “we are in an environment in which there has been virtually no enforcement of the campaign finance laws.”

6. It would be quite possible for there to be a truly nonpartisan fifth member, especially considering the publicity that will attend the selection of this person.

7. The great need justifies the rather small risk of an adverse result.

8. A 2018 Pew poll found that 65% of the American people support new campaign finance rules to reduce the role of money in politics, which is an impossibility under the existing system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Swood100 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

MastCell: your complaint is that "the "con" arguments are either blatant editorial synthesis or come from blogs and an obscure right-wing think tank)."

An obscure right-wing think tank is a reliable source for the right-wing point of view. It’s an opinion. Who’s going to give the right wing point of view other than the right-wing source? It says in WP:BIASED that “Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.” If a right-wing source gives a reason why the proposed legislation is a bad idea what is the risk? Certainly not that it’s biased. That’s why it was chosen – to give the POV of the right-wing. Are you claiming that the right-wing opinion can only come from the mainstream source?

Which specific claim do you object to? That the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) complains that the legislation allows an independent who is really allied with one of the major parties to be chosen as the fifth commissioner? That the IFS believes that the President would have no trouble finding an “independent” with views favorable to his or her party’s position? Since the IFS is an obscure right-wing think tank we have some doubt as to whether it is to be trusted to give the right-wing objections to the legislation? What exactly is your objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is it coatracking to include the complaint against Hillary? Do you think that mentioning it suggests that it is true? Does it introduce a bias? Am I suggesting that but for the 3 – 3 split Hillary would be found guilty? My actual purpose in including it was to show how political these questions are. Do you think that there has to be also mentioned a complaint against Trump, because there is no shortage of those to include. Swood100 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV in lede

@Rusf10: I'm wondering if you'd support adding back the wording mentioning voting rights, since (unless I'm mistaken) the Act does prohibit felony disenfranchisement once someone completes their sentence. You're right that it's unknown whether the bill would accomplish its goals, but if it's couched in "with the goal of x, y, z" I think it'd be a valuable thing to have in the lede. Thanks for lending insight! Polymath03 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

POV whitewashing

@AlsoWukai: I don't understand the rationale for your edit of 2021-01-23T21:42:45 deleting "(R-TX-2)" from the comment that, "Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2) tweeted a false claim about the act in March." That seems like POV whitewashing to me. Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is simply not standard Wikipedia practice to identify members of Congress in that way. AlsoWukai (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It has seemed fairly standard to me, especially in our hyper partisan age. When I read about any politician making any comment, I want to know their party affiliation. If it's not present in the text, I have to work harder to get that information. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@AlsoWukai: Thanks for your edits of 2021-01-30T06:57:48, except for your insistence on POV whitewashing, again changing "Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2)" to "Texas Representative Dan Crenshaw". As I indicated before, this seems to me to be Whitewashing (censorship). You've said, "It is simply not standard Wikipedia practice to identify members of Congress in that way." Do you have documentation of that? Both standard practice and what our audience wants to know seem exactly the opposite to me.

Wikiquote:George Washington was concerned that, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism." Sadly, the US political system, even as Washington was President, devolved into a system of party factions like what he warned against. When I encounter a name of a politician I don't know, I want to know first their political party, because I want to know if their behavior seems consistent with or contrary to the positions that tend to be associated with that party.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Please explain why you just undid my restoration of "(R-TX-2)", claiming it's "unnecessary". I think your deletion is POV Whitewashing, as discussed above. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead section / title changes - conforming to the reliable sources

I have challenged part of this edit, changing content (that has been longstanding in some form) to (1) change the phrase in the lead to "expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders" to "change voter registration and campaign finance laws, require states to use independent commissions for redistricting, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders"; and (2) change the section header "voting rights" to "voter registration."

Neither edit is an improvement. First, the sources are very clear that the bill is a voting rights bill. That's supported by all the cited sources. PolitiFact: "As their first bill in the new Congress, House Democrats have introduced major legislation to expand voting rights." USA Today: "House passes a broad anti-corruption and voting rights bill." The RS are equally clear that the bill aims to reduce money in politics: "The bill attempts to curtail the power of special interests and large donors..." If you have a problem with these characterizations, then your issue is with a reliable sources, which we follow.

Second, the change of the section header is even more baffling. As the section explains, the voting provisions in the bill go far beyond registration: the bill would also make Election Day a federal holiday, require a certain minimum for early voting, make provisions regarding postal voting, etc. Neutrality^talk 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong support for mentioning voting rights in the lede, as well as keeping "Voting rights" as the title of the header. Nearly every RS shows that the bill seeks to expand voting rights -- and even if we toss everything else aside for the sake of argument, no one here disagrees that it would prevent felony disenfranchisement. Polymath03 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose- Wikipedia should not be promoting the bill using Democratic Party talking points. The title of the very PolitiFact article "Neutrality" cites is "Voting rights expansion or federal power grab?". Clearly not everyone sees this as a expansion of voting rights. The only people that would actually gain the right to vote from this bill are a small group of felons in certain states (that's only a small part of the bill). "Neutrality" is also saying in wikipedia's voice that the campaign finance reform will "reduce the influence of money in politics". According to the USA Today article "The bill attempts to curtail the power of special interests and large donors" (emphasis mine). In fact even "Neutrality" says "The RS are equally clear that the bill aims to reduce money in politics" (emphasis mine). Saying that the bill attempts or aims to do something is not the same thing as saying it will do something. You also are asserting that the bill would limit partisan geryymandering. That is a stated goal of the bill, it is not guaranteed. I'm not here to debate whether commissions would actually work or not, but it certainly is possible that the commission would also come up with a gerrymandered map. The lead needs to say what the bill will do neutrally (which is exactly what my version does), not promote it like this version does.

As an alternative to my verision we keep "Neutrality"'s biased version but modify it to "Proponents state that the bill would expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders"-Rusf10 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm on board with adding "proponents state" -- I think any discussion of legislation is incomplete without a mention of its goals, but I see where you're coming from re: bias. Polymath03 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The PolitiFact article literally states in its first few lines that the bill is "major legislation to expand voting rights." It doesn't attribute it to "proponents" or anyone else. The USA Today article's title is "a broad anti-corruption and voting rights bill." Neutrality^talk 21:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've thought about it a bit, and I've come to the same conclusion as Neutrality; while (in my opinion) "proponents state [what the bill does]" is certainly better than not mentioning voting rights, the proponents state remains unnecessary. If people don't think that making voter registration easier, limiting disenfranchisement efforts, and making vote by mail easier doesn't qualify as "expanding voting rights" that's their prerogative, but even then, the bill still expands voting rights among ex-felons. Polymath03 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure it absolutely makes registration and voting easier, but it may also make fraud easier as well. I not going to debate that issue here, but there are two sides to this and we should not be making positive proclamations about what the bill will do. As another example, saying that the bill is intended to "limit partisan gerrymandering" is fine, but saying that it will accomplish this goal is not.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Strongly support the wording by Neutrality, mentioning voting rights in the lede, and keeping "Voting rights" as the title of the subsection. "Voting rights" is used in numerous references for this page:

• The Washington Post: "House Democrats will release H.R. 1 on Friday, and it will be a sprawling package — addressing campaign financing, voting rights, election cybersecurity and more."
• NPR: "Democrats Aim To Address Voting Rights."
• Vox: "The sweeping bill is aimed at...expanding voting rights for Americans by implementing provisions like automatic voter registration."
• The New York Times: "It would...restore voting rights to those who have served felony sentences."
• US News: "[T]he House proposed a package of sweeping democracy reforms in H.R. 1: legislation that aims to...protect voting rights."
• Slate: "This 571-page behemoth of a bill covering voting rights...Among the provisions affecting voting and voting rights are those requiring online voter registration, automatic voter registration, and same-day registration for voting in federal elections."
• The ACLU: "H.R. 1 addresses several of our top federal voting rights priorities".
• Esquire: "The bill would...restore voting rights for felons."
• Brennan Center: "This subtitle would restore federal voting rights to Americans who are disenfranchised due to a previous criminal conviction...This subtitle aims to protect voting rights for absent military and overseas voters by ensuring they receive their ballots earlier...This title would address restoration of the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and several other pressing voting rights issues...This subtitle would commit to protecting and promoting Native American voting rights...This subsection consists of the Disability Voting Rights Act, which would increase protections for the more than 35 million disabled Americans who are of voting age...This subtitle would make findings in support of federal voting rights for Americans living in the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands."
• PolitiFact: "House Democrats have introduced major legislation to expand voting rights."

And to the argument that the PolitiFact article does not state that it is a voting rights bill because it is titled "Voting rights expansion or federal power grab?", the "federal power grab" aspect is clearly simply a mention to the Mitch McConnell quote in the article in which he—a partisan actor—says it's a "power grab". The article itself clearly states "House Democrats have introduced major legislation to expand voting rights". Saying "Clearly not everyone sees this as a expansion of voting rights" in reference to the PolitiFact title is merely saying that Mitch McConnell views it more as a power grab than an expansion of voting rights—and last I checked, Mitch McConnell is not a reliable source. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So basically your argument is that Mitch McConnell is a "partisan actor", but Democrats are not. I suppose Nancy Pelosi is a reliable source. --Rusf10 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Where in the world did I argue that? The entire point of my post was that the phrasing "voting rights" is used in numerous reliable sources and the only evidence provided against that phrasing was a reference to a Mitch McConnell quote. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

The bill does not restrict superPACs or dark money, although it's been widely reported that it does. In fact, it does the reverse by eliminating the limits on private spending when receiving public money. It raises the donation limit from $5,000 to $100 million, sop it literally does nothing to overturn Citizens United, nor restrict victory funds. In short, it further entrenches the power of the two major parties and their stranglehold on the government. The claim about restricting dark money, while sourced, is false and needs to be removed. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk)!

• Unless you can point to a specific source and propose specific language that you want to add/delete/change, you will not get very far. And yes, obviously Congress cannot pass a statute that overturns a Supreme Court constitutional ruling. Neutrality^talk 22:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting edits of 9 March 2021‎ by 64.21.206.74

I just reverted all but one of the edits made in attempt to remove "prejudicial language." The language that was removed by this user was not prejudicial but based in fact. Congressional Republicans nearly all oppose the bill, while Congressional Democrats nearly all support it. In particular, the removal of "falsely" in "Crenshaw falsely claimed" takes away an important piece of information. My reading of WP:YESPOV leads me to believe that "Crenshaw claimed ____... his claim has been described as false by _____" is the best way to go about phrasing the sentence, so that's what I've done. Polymath03 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Restriction of freedom of speech

One argument made by at least one opponent of the bill is that it restricts the freedom of speech by broadly defining what is campaign speech and then burdening such speech with complicated paperwork. (David Keating at https://www.detroitnews.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.detroitnews.com%2Fstory%2Fopinion%2F2021%2F03%2F05%2Fopinion-for-people-act-gives-politicians-power-curtails-speech%2F6920517002%2F, https://ho1.us/2021/03/hr1-for-the-people-or-for-the-politicians-david-keating-on-how-hr1-curtails-free-speech/, and more extensively on 'American Thought Leaders.')Kdammers (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how we're supposed to give thoughts when both are behind paywalls. If these are just OpEds though, forget it. Zaathras (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Zaathras, it is difficult to weigh the value of a source when it is behind a paywall. This seems to be a growing problem for citations in articles, that the citations are to new articles that are behind paywalls. It also appears from the link that what is being cited is an Op-Ed which is an interpretation or opinion of an individual. I am hesitant to include op-eds as citations as the points are not necessarily grounded in facts, but are the expressions of opinions by an individual. Op-eds do not need to adhere to being accurate or based on fact though many are. It is difficult to cite to an op-ed while maintaining an unbiased approach. It is for these reasons that I do not support the request that the Act restricts freedom of speech. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My point wasn't the act restricts freedom of speech (such a claim would most likely be labeled original research), but that such claims have been made (along with the other complaints discussed in the opposition section). I mentioned one person, who is a pretty well known conservative. While I agree that pay-walls are a problem, they should not be considered an impenetrable fence. Any Wikipedia editor with access to the material can access and reference it (assuming it fits the usual criteria). I see this all the time with NYT and WaPo, both of which I used to read before they put up pay-walls.

In any case, here are some more sources for the claim that the act restricts freedom of speech (This isn't my area of specialty, so I don't know the first of these sites, so I don't know if it is acceptable): https://www.rstreet.org/hr1/ (used as a source in a number of Wik articles and the Institute behind it has a Wik article that does not seem to indicate it is a bad source), https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/the-facts-about-hr-1-the-the-people-act-2021 (the Heritage Foundation is already cited in the opposition section, but with no mention of this area of contention), and https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/nancy-pelosi-for-the-people-act-threatens-free-speech/ (This article by R. Lowry might be an opinion piece, but all support or opposition is opinion. The NR is obviously a reputable source.). According to this 'fact-checking site,' both the ACLU and the RNC chair maintain that the bill restricts freedom of speech (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/01/ronna-mcdaniel/yes-aclu-has-criticized-hr-1-heres-why/). Kdammers (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like we already have what you're talking about, albeit only from the ACLU -- see For_the_People_Act#Other. It'd probably be a good idea to add Heritage's free-speech criticism to the 'Opposition' section, since it represents a main argument of those against the bill. Polymath03 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Who are the people who actually wrote it?

Who are the people who actually wrote it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.140.83 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The bill was filed by John Sarbanes, so, largely himself, his legislative staff...and for bills this comprehensive, likely a team of tax code attorneys. The Office of Legislative Counsel also plays a large part in crossing the t's and dotting the i's of the final wording. Zaathras (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Public opinion" of, by and for progressives only

Sorry, a self-admitted progressive think tank like "Data for Progress" is not an accurate measure of public opinion of the American public as a whole, and cannot be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's own policy! 2601:646:8A01:B180:AC4D:98E1:E9C6:5269 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A well-conducted poll is a well-conducted poll, regardless of its source. If you can find some polling that shows a different result, by all means add it to the section. Polymath03 (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

C. Boyden Gray content - challenge

I am challenging, and have removed, certain new content cited to an op-ed by C. Boyden Gray. I believe this (lengthy) content is undue weight and also lacks context. The existing text already makes clear that Republican commentators/lawyers/former officials oppose this bill, and I believe it is unnecessary to have the specific link to Gray's op-ed in Newsweek. Per WP:ONUS, this must stay out unless and until a consensus forms for inclusion. As a compromise, if Gray absolutely must be included, I would accept something like this. If anyone has an alternate proposal, then I'm happy to consider it, but I ask that proposals be brought here for discussion first. Neutrality^talk 21:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As explained to you on your talkpage, this is outrageously in bad faith. Your original objection in the edit summary was that there was "too much weight to Gray", which you responded to by wiping out his entire argument and then subtly attacking the impartiality of his argument by associating him with a prior political status rather than his current status as a private attorney that he writes the piece under. Now you're saying the whole thing is WP:UNDUE without giving a basis for it and "lacking context"? The context is a rebuke of the literal interpretation right before it! You can't lump it in with prior arguments listed above since it is much more expansive and includes supporting references from multiple Supreme Court cases and current Supreme Court justices, all of which you removed. There's no basis to say reliable sources on a counter point to an argument listed in a section should not be included based on WP:ONUS, that leaves the section deliberately incomplete so one argument can remain as the last word while other perspectives challenging it are removed. It is a classic case of WP:BADPOV, and your repeated insistences on saying that it can't be re-included until a solid consensus is reached simply reflects the real motive behind your inconsistent actions: to challenge content you don't like under any illogical and unsubstantiated basis in order to stall its inclusion by hiding behind a broad interpretation of WP:ONUS and hoping to require a lengthy 'consensus' debate first. Davefelmer (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As I was writing my response, I also didn't see your subsequent edits to the post, but now that I do it's just another example of the kind of bad faith and WP:BADPOV being operated under here. You literally write "If anyone has an alternate proposal, then I'm happy to consider it", ignoring the compromising proposal I offered you on your own talkpage like half an hour ago, about cutting down the sentence about supportive SCOTUS justices/precedents and limiting it to a note at the end of the second sentence explaining the argument. Your "compromise" isn't a compromise, it's literally wiping out the entire argument and information, lumping in an extra name amongst the scores of "Republican officials" at the top of the section and adding an extra source in there. Davefelmer (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you, for a second time, to please stop being uncivil and assuming bad faith. That kind of behavior is not acceptable here, and it can be sanctionable. Neutrality^talk 22:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've supported my assertions with repeated evidence so am not concerned about myself here, but as you've found the time to both make this section and regularly respond, perhaps you'd like to tackle the actual arguments, my proposed compromise or offer your own solution? I don't see why you didn't do so now with this response, before or after noting what you did, and this is the kind of stuff that gets me thinking along the lines of you now simply wanting to leave it to others. Do you actually want to work on a compromise here or not? Because I ask again, what do you think of my proposal above then, since wiping out entire sourced counterpoints to previous arguments laid out in sections on a given topic is clearly beyond the pale. Davefelmer (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

When you repeatedly accuse other editors of operating in bad faith or question their motives, it should not come as a surprise that fewer people are going to want to engage with you. As I've said: (1) I think we already adequately explain the Republican opposition, (2) I do not think adding in-the-weeds text from this former Republican official is necessary or due weight, and (3) I suggested a compromise, which you rejected. Your proposal for an amended version still seems like too much for this page; it would give the opponents of the bill both "the first word" and "the last word"; and it would unduly feature the opinions of someone who is not an election law scholar. If you wanted to add something to the biography article, C. Boyden Gray, perhaps that would be more appropriate here. Neutrality^talk 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

But that isn't the case though, it's only the case with you because you're the only one acting like it. And as I've told you, there is simply no basis to say "I think we've adequately covered everything" when presented with a sourced counterpoint to the final point listed in the section. That makes absolutely 0 sense, the section lays out an evolving argument and you are basically saying to cut it off at a certain point when sources exist for further analysis, then saying to lump further analysis with prior analysis like it's the same thing, akin to us finding evidence of alien life for example and you suggesting to remove all of the content about it in an an article on alien life and simply pad it in as an extra source behind a line going "scientific consenus remains split on the possibility of alien life". You dismiss the evolving argument.

I'll accept your concern that one side appears to be getting the first and last word in but a few weeks ago before this article was published, a different side would have been getting the last word. Who knows, as time goes on perhaps a further counterpoint will be published towards the thoughts of Gray's piece and that will serve as the final point.

But if it's such an issue and you want it to flow as a one side and then the other thing, how about explaining the full Republican side, including Gray's expanded arguments, first, and then saying that other legal scholars such as Potter and Tolson reject this interpretation and believe the clause gives Congress full authority to regulate elections (exactly how it says it). That way, it goes one side and then the other as you say, the side for it being constitutional gets the last word and Gray's expanded argument can be explained without being censored. Davefelmer (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an OpEd penned by a lawyer that specialize in environmental and energy issues, not Constitutional law. He also held several positions within the Bush administration. That's it, there's nothing to suggest that his opinion on this matter is particularly worthwhile. Leave it out. Zaathras (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Remove: Very clearly WP:Undue. We shouldn't be devoting such significant space to the views of a single individual—and certainly not one who's not even a notable figure in the field of constitutional law. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, let's take the view that Gray's argument would be given undue weight written out in full. Its presence as a source at the end of the sentence should still allow "several conservative commentators" to be expanded to include 'lawyers' since he's much more than a commentator though. And although we won't use his argument in full, we should acknowledge that his piece expands on other arguments against the bill by including the distinguishing bits in the "among their claims" sentence, which is literally what it's for. So instead of "Among their claims are that each state, not the federal government, has the power to oversee and regulate elections under the Constitution, and that provisions of the bill would violate the First Amendment", we slightly add to it so it says "Among their claims are that each state, not the federal government, has the power to oversee and regulate elections under the Constitution, and that provisions of the bill would violate the First Amendment as well as previous Supreme Court rulings such as McPherson v. Blacker and Bush v. Gore." The rest after that is left as is. Davefelmer (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That works for me, your updated wording is a much more appropriate weighting. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)