Seems a false equivalency. The majority of the personalized destruction, cancelling, firing, etc, comes from one side.
I'm not aware of any such bill. What's its name? And why is it not dead on arrival due to the Equal Protection Clause?
It's not dead due to work by the Roberts Court to gut the voting rights act, which was the law that prevented this kind of shenanigans.
And now the "plausible deniability games" begin in earnest. It is entirely possible to write a law that is ostensibly race neutral while making it apply discriminatorily. For a non-racial example, consider preferring tall candidates or military veterans as a proxy for men.
Similarly, things like requiring a drivers license or travel to an in-person voting location prevent working class people who don't own a vehicle and who work 9-5 from being able to vote without sacrificing wages (or perhaps at all!)
I agree it's possible, just not that this bill does so.
> requiring a drivers license or travel to an in-person voting location
But the bill you linked to doesn't require either of those things. There are explicit provisions for people without driver's licenses in it, and it didn't ban absentee voting.
Right, it just makes it significantly more difficult, which means more people are required to vote in person.
> There are explicit provisions for people without driver's licenses in it,
Right, which you need to be familiar with and be able to assert your rights about.
Here's three questions:
1. All else equal, will this law decrease turnout by predominantly black working class voters?
2. Did the bills drafters intend this?
Three answers to both of those are "yes". Which brings up the third question: why isn't that discriminatory?
Being allowed to vote without an ID isn't good enough, because some people might not know it's allowed? And why would you need to "assert" your rights? If this bill were to pass, wouldn't pollworkers be aware of the new set of rules?
> 1. All else equal, will this law decrease turnout by predominantly black working class voters?
> 2. Did the bills drafters intend this?
> Three answers to both of those are "yes". Which brings up the third question: why isn't that discriminatory?
If the answer to both of those questions were actually yes, then I'd agree that the bill were discriminatory. But you've just asserted the answer is yes without providing evidence, and I don't agree with your assertion.
That depends on your race. The fun thing about arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions like this is that they can be enforced only against some people, something that the VRA explicitly prevented at the policy level until it was gutted.
The answer to the first is yes, policies like these result in voter suppression that has to be countered by additional gotv efforts for equivalent turnout (among predominantly black, working class, democrat voters).
The answer to the second is also yes. The Republican legislators aren't dumb. The theory that the election was "stolen" by the Dems, which led to this law is functionally that too many Democrats voted. And the point of this law is to prevent that, under the guise of blocking "illegitimate" (working class black democratic) voters.
Differently put: everyone knows what these bills are except people who are in denial of institutionalized racism. You've used an argument structure that is reminiscent of that used by people who are in denial of institutionalized racism. Therefore, it is assumed that you are in denial of institutionalized racism, and thus, there's no point telling you about the bills because you're just going to be in denial about them anyway.
Meanwhile, anyone who is not in denial can just use any random search engine and find articles like this one:
Will a lifelong religious devotee be dissuaded of his faith by one argument with me on hacker news?
I think the lot of you are naive, and unaware of what really motivates your views (its not logic).
Bills that restrict voting rights in America along racial lines are all over the news, even outside of America. That leaves only two possibilities. Either your range of media isn't as wide as you think, or you are in denial. You've already dismissed another commenter’s response, so I'm leaning towards the latter.
If you're getting news from strongly opinionated talking-heads, then that might explain the disconnect.