[consteval]

Again, it's not a matter of "can't figure out"

It's factual that black Americans are more likely to not have ID, and therefore a law requiring photo ID would disproportionately affect them. That's not up for debate.

In addition, Voting ID laws have historically been a method of disenfranchisement. I certainly don't trust conservatives to not disenfranchise voters, particularly when the method they're proposing was originally designed specially to exclude black Americans from voting.

In the naivest, most shallow view, voting ID doesn't seem bad. But when you look at WHO is proposing it, the history of voting ID, the distribution of ID in the US, etc. (the broader context), it seems clear that the intention of those types of laws is not pure.

In addition to this, we have virtually zero evidence that voter fraud is a widespread problem. The topic of voter fraud is largely just "made up" following the insurrection on Jan 6th. To me, it seems suspicious that we're proposing and pushing laws to restrict voting when we haven't even been able to verify the problem exists in the first place.

[refurb]

> In addition to this, we have virtually zero evidence that voter fraud is a widespread problem

It doesn’t have to be widespread to have an effect on outcomes.

[consteval]

Okay, we don't have any evidence to show it has an effect on outcomes. No, a politically charged speech doesn't count as evidence.

[refurb]

I would have hoped that a more logical place like HN wouldn’t make the mistake of assuming because there is no evidence it’s proof something isn’t happening.

[consteval]

I understand it's not proof of something not happening.

I would have hoped a more logical place like HN would understand taking extremely risky measures, which have a history of disenfranchising people, isn't worth it when the problem they're attempting to solve cannot even be identified.

The reason people are so hesitant to implement Voter ID is that the people advocating Voter ID aren't very honest. They refuse to admit the racist history, they refuse to admit the disparities between demographics, and they refuse to acknowledge their own lack of evidence.

That's very concerning. It makes one wonder what their intentions are. If they are truly not attempting to disenfranchise people, then why not admit to the previous history and then explain how that will be avoided? That would ease everyone's concerns. A win-win. But they don't do it.

Do you not find that suspicious?