Just to set a baseline, I'm of the opinion that there was no significant election fraud in this U.S. election cycle, let alone a systemic plan to steal the election. I've done my due diligence and, absent new, probative evidence, I don't expect my opinion to change.

The lack of fraud is so painfully evident that it's made me wonder why it's still being pushed by conservative lawmakers. Here's my theory:

Currently, only 18 states require voters to present photo identification to vote in person. Ever since Shelby v. Holder in 2013, the path to requiring photo identification for voters has been unobstructed by the Constitution. Today, the only issue now is garnering the political capital to legislate that at the state level, which is exactly what the election fraud narrative will allow. Regardless of its truth, state politicians will rationalize a photo identification requirement on the basis that it will prevent any of the "uncertainty" that came of this election cycle. Going forward, expect to see an increase in state laws requiring photo identification for voters.

So what's the upshot of this? Well, obviously more photo identifications for voters. You'll probably see a decrease in voting from historically disenfranchised demographics, as you do with most voter barriers. Fraud claims will be harder to make in the future, although I doubt they'll ever go away now that the political class has seen how easily they can be spun. Additionally, expect another lawsuit seeking to enforce the VRA against these laws, although I think (especially given the new Court's composition) it will die in the same way Shelby did.

Thoughts?

Just to set a baseline, I'm of the opinion that there was no significant election fraud in this U.S. election cycle, let alone a systemic plan to steal the election. I've done my due diligence and, absent new, probative evidence, I don't expect my opinion to change. The lack of fraud is so painfully evident that it's made me wonder why it's still being pushed by conservative lawmakers. Here's my theory: Currently, only 18 states require voters to present photo identification to vote in person. Ever since Shelby v. Holder in 2013, the path to requiring photo identification for voters has been unobstructed by the Constitution. Today, the only issue now is garnering the political capital to legislate that at the state level, which is exactly what the election fraud narrative will allow. Regardless of its truth, state politicians will rationalize a photo identification requirement on the basis that it will prevent any of the "uncertainty" that came of this election cycle. Going forward, expect to see an increase in state laws requiring photo identification for voters. So what's the upshot of this? Well, obviously more photo identifications for voters. You'll probably see a decrease in voting from historically disenfranchised demographics, as you do with most voter barriers. Fraud claims will be harder to make in the future, although I doubt they'll ever go away now that the political class has seen how easily they can be spun. Additionally, expect another lawsuit seeking to enforce the VRA against these laws, although I think (especially given the new Court's composition) it will die in the same way Shelby did.

Thoughts?