Drax The Destroyer, is that you?
Making you Thanos?
If that’s your standard, you have no basis for objection to leprechaun references. Some people believe in leprechauns. Evidence that leprechauns actually exist is irrelevant and need not be quantified. Any negative effects that result from pro-leprechaun laws is irrelevant and can be ignored.
If leprechauns seem too irreverent for you, picture a law that caters to people’s belief in God (certainly Americans that believe in and approve of God outnumber those who believe in leprechauns, or are concerned about election-result confidence). Does God actually exist? Who cares? Will some Americans face hardship and/or loss of civil right(s)? Fuck 'em? Is that still a morally neutral process? If we have legislators talking about how it’s good that this law will hurt people who don’t believe correctly, does it matter?
It’s not merely “some” people that agree with Voter ID, though.
If leprechauns enjoyed the same level of support amongst the public that Voter ID does, your claim might have more traction.
I don’t really follow this argument. A law that caters to belief in religion certainly enjoys validity. Look at the RFRA.
Every time you invoke appeal to popularity, I’m reminded to remind you of this the next time you complain about how the board is ganging up on you. The majority views must be right, apparently, or at least sufficiently right that any questioning or challenging comprises an effort to dictate moral terms.
And I look forward to SCOTUS doing so in future, but the point remains - is it morally neutral to use unevidenced belief (indeed belief that is utterly if not aggressively indifferent to evidence) to deprive some random segment of the population of an important civil right? You can quibble that they’re not really being deprived, or the deprivation is “minimal”, but you haven’t established why exercise should be hampered at all, except to cater to an unevidenced (if popular) belief.
Alternately, I look forward to the moral neutrality that leads to, say, the popular idea to let businesses reserve the right to refuse service (I’m sure a properly-phrased poll question could easily demonstrate such), a store flatly declaring that they will not do businesses with Catholics and a law that says they can do exactly that. Go back a few decades and I’m sure you could find numerous exclusion policies, establishing adequate precedent. Morally neutral? And this is just buying stuff, not expressing your will as a citizen and voter in an ostensibly free democracy, so it should be even easier to accomplish.
Except that it’s part and parcel with the analogy! Belief in widespread, election-swinging voter fraud is like belief in Leprechauns. We’ve never seen it, all our evidence points to it being a convenient fantasy, and yet there are a lot of people who believe in it. The fact that there are many, many people who believe in it is indicative of the need for more education. We don’t just bow down to those people wanting to restrict the rights of others due to their irrational fear. Look, it’s not a hard analogy to grasp, I’m not the first to use it in this thread, and the idea that you’d take it literally or accuse me of strawmanning because I used an analogy is almost disturbingly childish. Come on.
Or at least less lying.