on this, but what the heck, I'll try anyway. First, as I've said before, you can describe anything as "suppression". Not going door to door to pick up mass mailed ballots "suppresses" voters that otherwise would have to go to a drop box, request an absentee ballot to mail back, or go to the polls. Just as does not being able to give out water less than 150' from the polls if you work for a campaign. There's a reason you guys always talk about suppression, and not voters actually prevented from voting.

A quick scan of that oh so unbiased ACLU piece and you can easily counter:

Voter ID laws: Again, with all those states that required photo ID's, why can't you produce one single voter they prevented from voting? Of course you're not going to catch me voting as Sixer Hoo because your history/frequency of voting or not is easily available. If I were to do such a thing, I'm sure there is a nice activist out there that can provide me with the name of a non-active, moved, or even a dead voter not yet removed from those voter rolls Dems also fight purging to minimize or remove concerns about that voter showing up later.

Voter registration restrictions: "Restrictions can include requiring documents to prove citizenship or identification" Noooooo! We are expecting folks to prove they're citizens and thus eligible to vote, and that they are hoo they claim to be registering as. How suppressive! Why would that not be a bare minimum requirement?

Voter purges: Again, you guys have not presented a single voter that was prevented from casting their legal vote by this evil "suppression" method. Even if you are somehow mistakenly purged, you can still cast a provisional ballot. There's a reason Dems resist efforts to purge rolls, and above you'll find one of those reasons.

Felony disenfranchisement: I have no problem with losing the right to vote as one of the penalties with a felony conviction. But as long as you've fully paid your debt to society for that crime, I'm fine with reinstating those rights. If you don't like the current law in your state, be it allowing felons to vote before fully paying their debt, or not allowing those rights forever, then fight to change the law and vote for those that will do so on your behalf. That's your recourse there, not mandating every state does it the way you think is best. Bernie argued for felons voting while incarcerated. Why should every state abide by that more than every state should end those rights forever?

Gerrymandering: Aside from the fact that this is a joke unless you also argue Dems starting this by drawing up majority minority districts to ensure desired outcomes was also suppression, this isn't suppression. You can still vote. It's no more suppression than it would be for LAHoo now, or for me if VA turns firmly blue, or I lived in Bobby Scott's district. FTR I'm all in favor of approaches like VA's (which I voted for) move to a bipartisan commission to draw districts. That will all but eliminate these games by both sides. And no, non-citizens should not be considered for the purposes of drawing districts, but of course Dems blocked efforts designed to prevent that from being the case.

TBC, just like I don't deny racism still exists, I am not denying suppression efforts happen with less than honest intent. NC all but admitted that was their intent. Those efforts should be pushed back against to make voting as easy as practical, while also ensuring you are voting as the person you claim to be, you are indeed legally eligible to vote, and we have a paper trail of votes in case of a contested election. Give me those three things, and I'm good.