[crooked-v]

> Your linked source is talking about an entirely different issue.

It's a court ruling that shut down North Carolina voter ID and early voting laws, in part because the defense of those laws included that that literal quote about it making harder for black people to vote.

> All we know is that some Republicans are biased, just as all people have biases.

When 'some' is enough to control a state legislature, and similar things happen across the country (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-su...), it's a logical conclusion.

> Also, your source is not substantiated.

It literally links directly to the court judgement.

[jimmywanger]

> When 'some' is enough to control a state legislature, and similar things happen across the country (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-su...), it's a logical conclusion.

I don't see how it follows that a state legislature's cupidity directly translates to a national party's intentions. That's a bridge too far. If there's a smoking gun, such as a leaked internal memo, I would agree totally. People are scumbags and are biased to try to make their side win in most situations.

>It literally links directly to the court judgement.

Yes, for closing the polls early, not for voter id laws.

[NotSammyHagar]

How about this:

1. 4 times Alec was caught talking with republican lawmakers about how to suppress the vote (Montana, Alabama, Phoenix, Omaha : https://www.mediamatters.org/american-legislative-exchange-c...

2. North Carolina suppression tactics https://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolina-wont-stop-s...

3. More on N.C. voter id law to suppress voting: https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-north-carolin...

It's not just some scattered occasional thing of a few bad actors. There are state by state actions and national conferences making this happen.

[crooked-v]

> If there's a smoking gun, such as a leaked internal memo, I would agree totally.

What about a variety of direct quotes from the heads of different state Republican parties? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno...

>Yes, for closing the polls early, not for voter id laws.

The judgment is on a law that affects both.

[jimmywanger]

> What about a variety of direct quotes from the heads of different state Republican parties? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno....

That shows no evidence that they are willing to make their views public or that they are shared by republicans on a national level. There is absolutely no evidence for that. > The judgment is on a law that affects both.

That is not in evidence. The article you cited did not link the court decision mentioned. The court decision is only speaking to the decision to close polling spots on Sunday because it will suppress black, and majority Democratic voters.

[specialist]

If you doubt dozens of leaks, hundreds of exposés, archival records, court documents, and diaries from the operatives who coordinated the nationwide disenfranchisement campaigns:

What measure of proof do you require?