This still isn't addressing the point. There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look"), or to keep legitimate Democratic voters from voting.
Where is your evidence for intent?
Incidentally... what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything? What year is it?
> There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look")
There is no evidence of any substantial incidence of any kind of fraud voter ID laws might address. If you disagree, please present the evidence.
> Where is your evidence for intent?
The numerous admissions by Republicans of partisan motivation for and partisan benefits from voter ID over many years, e.g.
Neither article shows what you purport it to show. It's no secret Republicans think they'll do better as a result of voter ID laws, but that doesn't address the point. The Maddow article is particularly disingenuous.
> what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything?
You do understand where modern precedent for the DOJ to step in for state and local elections comes from, right?
1950s weren't that long ago and the Republican party as a whole is not all that different when it comes to treatment of minorities. Sure, the rest of the country is here in the 21st century in regards to voter rights -- I can't say the same for Republicans, who again, are attempting to restrict voting rights of D leaning demographics.
Now your standard is to prove intent? Sorry, I am not a mind reader. As stated previous, the courts have ruled (recently in VA for example) that Republican legislators have used their positions in government to systematically disenfranchise minority voters. Whether they meant to? I couldn't tell you, but it is a legal fact determined by our court systems.
Again, this is a legal fact (pending appeal) as things exist, today, in this year of a Republican legislative body disenfranchising black voters. Argue intent all you like, I prefer stick with the facts.
> Diaz's order came in response to allegations that the General Assembly violated the Voting Rights Act by packing too many African-Americans in the 3rd District represented by Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, D-Newport News.
I'm done here. All I am doing is repeating myself. All you are doing is ignoring evidence and presenting an impossible standard as your defense.
And since I am feeling particularly generous today, I will assume you are arguing in good faith and really are not aware that no evidence of widespread voter fraud of any kind exists from the last election.
> There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election
"Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North
Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of
the law with discriminatory intent."
Where is your evidence for intent?
Incidentally... what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything? What year is it?