Citation quality 

First thing, I kiss the (virtual) feet of Wikidemon.  Thanks so very much for the wonderful cleanup of references yesterday!

Second thing, it seems like despite the heroic efforts, citations keep getting new problems with new edits.  WB74 inserted a bunch of footnotes to support the claim that 22 charges or convictions of ACORN workers have occurred.  Unfortunately, these facts seem firstly motivated by WP:TRUTH, and only secondarily by citations.  Nonetheless, I think something close to this number is probably right, and I have nothing against it being in the article (FWIW, it was me who edited a few days ago to say "at least 15"... I actually think the 'at least' is clarifying, but I'm not going to fight about those two words).

At some length on this talk page, WB74 provided lots of citations, most of them from far-right opinion publications rather than reliable sources.  In an edit today to the article, a somewhat different set of citations were provided.  These seem rather sloppily collected.  The first one I looked at was the wonderfully WP:RS NYT; however, once I read its body, I saw that it had nothing relevant to the 22 claim given in the sentence (it was about Ken Blackwell's stricter enforcement of registration requirements in 2006, perhaps in excess of the new laws according to the article).  It was an interesting article, just not one having anything to do with the sentence it was listed next to.

So I'll look through the rest of the added citations.  I urge other editors to also pay careful attention to the relevance and accuracy of citations added by a certain set of highly partisan editors.  There's wheat among the chaff, but we obviously can't assume that just because something points to, e.g. NYT it actually supports the point claimed. ×talk