This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted on 15 June 2012 by reviewer Ktr101 (talk · contribs). Georgia (U.S. state): Atlanta High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Atlanta task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Atlanta task force To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate Atlanta related articles from Unassessed Atlanta articles and Category:Unknown-importance Atlanta articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Atlanta articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Infobox : Atlanta articles without infoboxes Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Atlanta Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Atlanta Stubs : Work on stubs in Category:Atlanta stubs. Other : * Help out with articles placed in Category:Atlanta articles needing attention Add {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)|class=|importance=|atlanta=|atlanta-importance=}} project banner to Atlanta-related articles to talk pages and assess. Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality. Get Atlanta into Featured article status. Improve groups of articles to meet the standards for a Good or Featured Topic. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Mississippi / Texas / State Legislatures / University of Texas at Austin / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - University of Texas at Austin (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Wisconsin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Romance Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Black Lives Matter High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article was created or improved during WikiProject Black Lives Matter's July 2020 edit-a-thon. Women in Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Red: BLM/Anti-discrimination (2020) This article was created or improved during the BLM/Anti-discrimination edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project from July to December 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

Freespeech2024 is invited to discuss their preferred content here rather than edit warring. So far, five other editors have reverted this content. In my own revert, I stated Rolling back WP:BLP violation. We'd need a preponderance of reliable sources to say this. Please discuss here and gain consensus before attempting to re-add it once again. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed content worsens the neutrality of the article. We settled on some well-sourced and neutrally summarized content after lengthy discussion in Talk:Stacey Abrams/Archive 2. I'm not aware of new, strong sources that would be likely to shift that consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is a frequent topic of discussion, I've decided to go back and review the sources regarding Abrams and the 2018 claims. Here's what I've found:

• USA Today (November 20, 2020) - “While Abrams has maintained the 2018 gubernatorial election was unfair and tainted by voter suppression, there’s no empirical evidence that now-Gov. Kemp stole that election from her.”
• 
USA Today (November 18, 2020) - “Bullock said that there's not much empirical evidence to suggest Kemp tried to suppress votes or steal the election – but the talking point is good politics.“
• New York Times (April 28, 2019) - “I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election.”
• 
AJC (December 3, 2021) - The kind of voting barriers that Abrams said she objects to did exist to some extent, though her loss by about 55,000 votes wasn’t in doubt after ballots were counted.
• NYT (March 3, 2019) - It is a sweeping conclusion that even many voting rights advocates say remains extremely difficult to prove.
• AJC (November 9, 2018) - However, no evidence emerged of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams.
• 
PolitiFact (November 21, 2019) - “The claim is a good talking point, but the evidence is missing”
• PolitiFact (May 10, 2019) - It isn’t possible to prove if any election law or policy in either state cost the Democrats their elections, so we aren’t rating the statement by Harris on the Truth-O-Meter
"
• PolitiFact (May 10, 2019) - “I have seen no good evidence that the suppressive effects of strict voting and registration laws affected the outcome of the governor’s races in Georgia and Florida”
• PolitiFact (November 21, 2019) - “ We previously found it isn’t possible to prove if any election law or policy in Georgia cost Abrams her narrow loss to Republican Brian Kemp.”
• PolitiFact (May 10, 2019) - “The only really honest answer is that no one knows for sure how much voting was depressed by the alleged acts of ‘voter suppression’ by former Secretary of State Kemp”
• Washington Post (October 30, 2019) - “I have seen no good social science evidence that efforts to make it harder to register and vote were responsible for Kemp’s victory over Abrams in the Georgia gubernatorial race.”
• 
Washington Post (October 30, 2019) - “The claim is not based on fact but will continue to be articulated by Abrams since it helps mobilize her supporters.”
• Washington Post (November 15, 20180) - Practically speaking, they are alleging illegal activity that hasn’t been proven -- and seems unlikely to be.

Out of all of these sources, only one presents it as even possible to prove voter suppression impacted the result. The vast majority either say that no proof exists, or the claim is impossible to prove or disprove (an unfalsifiable claim, akin to trying to prove or disprove Bigfoot or jackalopes are real).

The one exception is source in the the lead - a quote from a Richard Hasen book, which is itself a quote from Mother Jones writer Ari Berman. But this is conflicted by other Hasen quotes above, and his article in Slate, where he says "Saying Kemp tried to suppress Democratic votes and saying the election was stolen are two different things, and making charges of a stolen election when it cannot be proved undermines Democrats’ complaints about suppressive tactics."; the quote from Berman itself comes from a Mother Jones article, and at perennial sources Mother Jones is listed as reliable, but with a disclaimer that "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed"; the current wording does not attribute Mother Jones. Berman is unequivocally a partisan source here, too - his works include Herding Donkeys: The Fight to Rebuild the Democratic Party and Reshape American Politics and his articles are about as partisan as you'd expect of a Mother Jones writer.

In other words: I don't think the lead accurately reflects the consensus of sources. The consensus of sources isn't that it's unclear what happened - it's that the claims haven't been proven, or can't be proven because they're unfalsifiable - even Abrams herself admits she has no evidence in the third quote. The current page wording, rather than saying this, says scholars and reporters are "unable to determine whether voter suppression affected its result", which instead falls in line with the least reliable, most partisan source listed (Mother Jones). When in doubt, we shouldn't be relying on Mother Jones - we should be relying on more reliable sources like the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, PolitiFact, The Washington post, etc. I'm concerned we're providing undue weight for a fringe theory here.

At the very least, the lead should be reworded to be more specific - something like "News outlets and political science experts have not found evidence that voter suppression affected its result", which is more in line with what reliable sources broadly suggest (that there is no evidence, or that the claims are inherently unable to be proven or disproven). Toa Nidhiki05 15:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voter suppression in the United States is a real thing, so much so that we have a page on it. It can't be proven that it swung the election to Kemp. With more time having passed, do we need to keep it in the lead at all? We can just say she lost in the lead and leave the voter suppression stuff and lack of concession in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a fair point. The body already covers it - so it’s not like a removal from the lead would remove that. I’d be fine with this. Toa Nidhiki05 20:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]