# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 424
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8461 "2016-02-08T00:22:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meteorology is not climatology you numnuts. We can add spelling to the list of things you’re not good at. :dubious: Of course it’s not climatology, but a message board blowhard that holds himself out as some sort of climate change “expert” would at least have a passing knowledge of meteorology and geography, which you clearly do not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8462 "2016-02-08T00:36:48Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Sure. But I think a lot of what concerns me about that issue is that with this formulation, any change to those levels of effort and time, or any inequities in how those levels apply to different groups, are basically changes to who is part of the electorate, but changes which can be disguised as purely procedural. That’s why we have courts. If one side contends that a change is disguised as purely procedural, but in reality creates an unacceptable barrier to a particular group, they ask the courts to invalidate it. Indeed, in a couple of cases, courts have done so. And I am perfectly sanguine about that. In other words, I accept the result of the workings of representative democracy, which process includes the courts. You, it appears, are inclined to do so when the result aligns with your desired policy, but not so much when it does not. > [@](#): > > But it seems like your position is “yes, people on my side have motives that are either sleazy, or are just uninformed, but as long as the extra burden that is added to groups of voters who demographically are likely to disagree with me doesn’t actually meet the legal level specified by the supreme court, well, then, hey, the fact that the law also has a possible hypothetical benefit that only I have ever proposed and which might never actually come up means that the whole situation is hunky dory! Yay my team!” What happened to, “Well, I am arguing with you; what other people do doesn’t interest me so I won’t address it?” I am not the only person to ever propose the invidious effect of an ultra-close election when there are no sureties for voter identity. But why do you care? Why are you asking me to comment on their tactics, when my requests for you to comment on people much closer to,the discussion falls on deaf ears? > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone expects you to say that you think these laws are illegal or unconstitutional… certainly you’re more knowledgeable about this than most of us. On the contrary – most people in this thread are arguing that Voter ID should be found unconstitutional. > [@](#): > > What you could certainly say is “it bothers me that ‘my side’ has put so much time and effort into these laws. While I find them to be legal, I also view them as antidemocratic and abhorrent” or something like that. But I don’t. I regard them the same way I regard the Massachusetts legislature changing the rules so that a Republican can’t appoint a senator to a vacant seat but a Democrat can, or the way Democrats use “walking around money” to increase turnout: it’s a technically legal tactic that a motivated partisan uses because that’s what motivated partisans do. > [@](#): > > Overall, if the Republican party as a whole was a person who was going to die and go up to the pearly gates and be judged by St. Peter (or does God do the judging, and just tell St. Peter what the outcome is?), do you think that whole recent spate of voter ID laws would be a positive, a neutral, or a negative? A negative, almost certainly, but the question is flawed. A single person is judged by his informed conscience and whether he understood an act to be wrong. Since “the Republican Party” is made up of many persons, some of whom support these laws for very acceptable reasons and some who don’t, it’s not useful to analogize the entire party to a single person. I think that composite person would say something like, “I did what everyone else does.” And I think that’s a true statement. Where the problem arises is in deciding just how informed the conscience of the composite person is, and how the multitude of different motives coalesce into a single person’s decision. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8463 "2016-02-08T01:25:35Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > We can add spelling to the list of things you’re not good at. :dubious: > > Of course it’s not climatology, but a message board blowhard that holds himself out as some sort of climate change “expert” would at least have a passing knowledge of meteorology and geography, which you clearly do not. Thank you for demonstrating all how dumb you are, as pointed I already acknowledged the error with the hurricane, you only have demonstrated that you are not learning anything, you _ **numbnuts** _. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8464 "2016-02-08T01:29:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If that excuse is permitted, then I can use it to deny any election result I please. That was your point, so fight it with yourself. BTW it was referring to the moves made by the Republicans before any vote is casted, so you are still going about the wrong issue. > [@Bricker](#): > > No, it doesn’t. That perception is the result of an irresponsible left wing propaganda machine. > > See the problem? That will work if you are accusing now the professor (and the other authors) of the latest study as being partisan or that he is lying. Are you? So it is still your problem that you are avoiding, and everyone can see that you continue to avoid what the latest study is telling us. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8465 "2016-02-08T02:35:20Z")
I’m trying to concentrate on the existential assignment of collective and personal responsibility in political action, but am distracted by consequences of innovation, in this case, the introduction of the NFL to the Teflon coated football. I would have thought they would pick a better time to make such a change, but no… ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8466 "2016-02-08T03:12:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Thank you for demonstrating all how dumb you are, as pointed I already acknowledged the error with the hurricane, you only have demonstrated that you are not learning anything, you _ **numbnuts** _. Um, you’ve already demonstrated that you are not any good at meteorology, geography, grammar, or spelling. Why should a reader of this message board believe your grandiose pronouncements about climate change? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8467 "2016-02-08T03:30:02Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Um, you’ve already demonstrated that you are not any good at meteorology, geography, grammar, or spelling. Are you incapable of rational thought? I demonstrated already that I can accept my mistakes and learn from them, you are lying to yourself now. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Why should a reader of this message board believe your grandiose pronouncements about climate change? Because you are the only one that is getting stuck like a broken record (because as anyone can see, it is the only issue you have found that you can tell to yourself is a useful one) and never learning anything new, like learning that I already acknowledged the issues. As I like to say when I encounter dumb ones like you, I prefer to stumble from time to time, rather that be like you; someone that only lies to himself or herself and never learns anything. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8468 "2016-02-08T03:50:15Z")
Ah yes, Gaudere is a harsh mistress. I meant to say that I prefer to stumble from time to time, rather **than** be like you; someone that only lies to himself or herself about what someone said before and to be someone that never learns anything. Like how many Republicans are making a fool of yourself when science or evidence should be taken into account. (And the grammar of an opponent is jut what it is, a red herring) You should learn too that not all of them like to follow willful ignorants like you. > **[It’s Time to Praise Some Pro-Science Republicans in Congress](https://slate.com/technology/2015/11/gop-science-some-republicans-are-bucking-their-party-about-climate-change.html)** > > Not all GOP members of Congress are anti-science. Some acknowledge the reality of climate change, and are organizing to do something about it. [QUOTE=The Bad Astronomer] Over the past few years I’ve hammered pretty hard at Republicans in Congress for being anti-science because … well, because, as a party, they are. But there’s dissension in the ranks, and I’m very, very pleased to hear it. And it’s over the single most important topic in the politicization of science: climate change. There have been a few voices in opposition to the staunch GOP plank of head-in-the-sandism, but just a few. Lindsey Graham, for one, and Jon Huntsman for another (though Huntsman is a former governor of Utah, and not in Congress). I’ve also mentioned Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, before, who signed on with President Obama’s EPA Clean Power Plan. Phil Plait Phil Plait Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death From the Skies! But now it looks like they’re getting organized. In the Senate, Ayotte, along with Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee; Graham; and Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, has formed a Senate Energy and Environment Working Group, the purpose of which is to “focus on ways we can protect our environment and climate while also bolstering clean energy innovation that helps drive job creation. The group will meet periodically to discuss general energy and environmental issues and exchange ideas about potential legislation.” That is fantastic news! I also like that they are paying attention to “market-based reforms” when it comes to energy. Alternative energy sources (notably wind and solar) are getting cheaper very quickly, and in many places are on equal footing with the energy generation cost for fossil fuels. It makes good economic sense to invest in these sources, and that’s a powerful argument when it comes to the conservative party … assuming that fossil fuel money won’t always present a roadblock to the ones in power. [/QUOTE] Others have looked too the matter at hand, and even before the most recent study, they found why is that minorities and the poor are the targets of the new laws. > **[How Voter ID Laws Are Being Used to Disenfranchise Minorities and the Poor](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/)** > > Conservatives say this kind of legislation is meant to curb voter fraud. But while evidence of fraud is scant, proof of the regulations' failings is not. > [@](#): > > There’s more. As Brentin Mock wrote earlier this week at Colorlines, the practical reality of life in Texas makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people who want to comply with the new ID law to do so. Mock wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends. > > > > ``` > > Here’s how Governor Rick Perry responded: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Texas has a responsibility to ensure elections are fair, beyond reproach, and accurately reflect the will of voters. The DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane. Their denial is yet another example of the Obama Administration's continuing and pervasive federal overreach. > > > > ``` > > _Continuing and pervasive federal overreach._ We’ve heard that refrain before, as constantly as a chorus in fact, since President Obama took office in 2009. Opponents of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, for example, have asserted that Congress overreached its authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted. Now many of those same people say that the Justice Department is overreaching with its interpretation of the Voting Rights Act by seeking to void these state ID laws – and that the federal law itself is a statutory overreach that violates the 10th Amendment right of states to determine their own election rules. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8469 "2016-02-08T04:30:44Z")
Wow. Rick Perry, the ACA, the Voting Rights Act, and the 10th Amendment, all in one post. Are you finished yet? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8470 "2016-02-08T04:58:39Z")
Sample GIGOBuster post: _You’re wrong about the NFL rules change. As proof, here are eight articles about how the Republicans are wrong on the science of climate change thus proving my point about NFL rules. Because science._ ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8471 "2016-02-08T05:04:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sample GIGOBuster post: > > _You’re wrong about the NFL rules change. As proof, here are eight articles about how the Republicans are wrong on the science of climate change thus proving my point about NFL rules. Because science._ Exhibit #1101 of Bricker avoiding dealing with the ones that do know better than me because… well it is easy to kill the messenger than to deal with the message indeed. I prefer to have problems with grammar rather than being a willful ignorant with no good replies to what a professor and others have found. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8472 "2016-02-08T05:08:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Others have looked too the matter at hand, and even before the most recent study, they found why is that minorities and the poor are the targets of the new laws. > > [How Voter ID Laws Are Being Used to Disenfranchise Minorities and the Poor - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/) Too bad. The Supreme Court did not agree with the author of the piece you quote. Your article says: (all sorts of reasons Sec 5 of the Voting Rights Act prevents Texas from enforcing its law) The Supreme Court said: (Sec 5 of the Voting Rights Act is struck down) So did you know that you were quoting an article that was arguing for a result at the Supreme Court that had _already gone the other way?_ There’s probably some defense for this error in a climate change article. Why don’t you post it? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8473 "2016-02-08T05:12:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Too bad. > > The Supreme Court did not agree with the author of the piece you quote. > > Your article says: > > (all sorts of reasons Sec 5 of the Voting Rights Act prevents Texas from enforcing its law) > > The Supreme Court said: > > (Sec 5 of the Voting Rights Act is struck down) > So did you know that you were quoting an article that was arguing for a result at the Supreme Court that had _already gone the other way?_ > > There’s probably some defense for this error in a climate change article. Why don’t you post it? Personal dig noted once again, Indeed, it was an older article and I mentioned it because more evidence has come to show how wrong the SC got it then, now deal with the most recent one rather than the red herring of where it came from. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8474 "2016-02-08T05:22:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Exhibit #1101 of Bricker avoiding dealing with the ones that do know better than me because… well it is easy to kill the messenger than to deal with the message indeed. > > I prefer to have problems with grammar rather than being a willful ignorant with no good replies to what a professor and others have found. Oh, no! A professor? Well, why didn’t you say so before? Clearly, we can’t argue with a professor. Unless… we ALSO have a professor! Then I can ask you how you are a willful ignorant who dares to argue with a professor. [Here:](http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2012-07-11/voter-id-trial-state-witness-turnout-wont-be-affected#.Vrgl93-DmrV) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON (AP)— An expert testifying for the state of Texas told a federal court on Wednesday that new voter identification requirements would not have an impact on voter turnout. > Daron Shaw, an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas, said there’s also no evidence that requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls disproportionately impacts one race over another. Shaw cited as evidence a series of surveys and research he conducted at the request of Texas. So what’s the story now? How dare you argue with a professor? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8475 "2016-02-08T05:23:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Personal dig noted once again, Indeed, it was an older article and I mentioned it because more evidence has come to show how wrong the SC got it then, now deal with the most recent one rather than the red herring of where it came from. The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, That’s how the system works. Do you need a cite for that? Maybe something involving climate change? I know you love those. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8476 "2016-02-08T05:41:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, > > That’s how the system works. Do you need a cite for that? 😕 AFAIK the supreme court did declare that it was unconstitutional for the states to ask for permission before adding voting restrictions, so after the new laws are in place it seems that the federal government and other courts can still intervene if evidence comes forward that a new law results in old and new tricks from the states that did discriminate against minority voters. > [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe something involving climate change? I know you love those. Now I wonder about you, that was a reply to the other poster that does want to pretend that even if a correction was made before, that the correction never took place… because it is easy to continue thinking that I never did. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8477 "2016-02-08T05:45:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, no! A professor? > > Well, why didn’t you say so before? > > Clearly, we can’t argue with a professor. > > Unless… we ALSO have a professor! > > Then I can ask you how you are a willful ignorant who dares to argue with a professor. > > [Here:](http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2012-07-11/voter-id-trial-state-witness-turnout-wont-be-affected#.Vrgl93-DmrV) > > So what’s the story now? How dare you argue with a professor? By pointing out that based on the latest evidence he was wrong in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8478 "2016-02-08T05:55:48Z")
Here is interesting to note that I have seen this tactic many times before, it is classic FUD made many times before with Tobacco smoke, ozone layer depletion, acid rain, etc. It is not too hard to find experts that do support a controversial course of action, like not doing anything about problems like those; in this case claiming that a new law was not going to significantly affect the voting rights of minorities or the poor. And it was a prediction anyhow, an educated one but a prediction still. It needs to be eventually checked. As noted already, is not likely to be correct after checking the most recent results. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8479 "2016-02-08T06:38:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 😕 > > AFAIK the supreme court did declare that it was unconstitutional for the states to ask for permission before adding voting restrictions, so after the new laws are in place it seems that the federal government and other courts can still intervene if evidence comes forward that a new law results in old and new tricks from the states that did discriminate against minority voters. Correct. And they did. And the trial judge ruled sweepingly against Texas. And Texas appealed. And Texas then won their major point at the Fifth Circuit, although it lost some others which were sent back to the trial court for reconsideration under the correct standard. Are you at all interested in hearing what the Fifth Circuit said? I will explain it, if you care. If you don’t care because you’re right and they’re wrong no matter what, I won’t waste typing time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8480 "2016-02-08T06:39:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Here is interesting to note that I have seen this tactic many times before, it is classic FUD made many times before with Tobacco smoke, ozone layer depletion, acid rain, etc. It is not too hard to find experts that do support a controversial course of action, like not doing anything about problems like those; in this case claiming that a new law was not going to significantly affect the voting rights of minorities or the poor. > > And it was a prediction anyhow, an educated one but a prediction still. It needs to be eventually checked. As noted already, is not likely to be correct after checking the most recent results. Funny that you disagreed all along, no matter what the earlier results were. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=423) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=425)