Talk:Guinn v. United States

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Law 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Oklahoma Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

This is the correct word; disenfranchisement has an extra syllable that is not needed.--Parkwells (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend coming to a conclusion, and cutting out the extra language. After reading and analyzing the article for several minutes, I still have no idea whether or not it was constitutional. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions (User talk:talk) 18:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a unanimous decision, the article should say so... AnonMoos (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]