When people talk about voter suppression, we don't always talk about these highly effective methods such as: - requiring a specific ID that is difficult for cer

When people talk about voter suppression, we don't always talk about these highly effective methods such as: - requiring a specific ID that is difficult for certain segments of the population to get. Either by requiring non-existent documentation, or making the in-person process onerous. - closing polling stations, or understaffing in certain areas. - adding regulations that are prima facie neutral, but in reality disadvantage some population segments more. (eg: unstable home addresses, no PO boxes accepted, not allowing college addresses) - not making good faith effort to ensuring everyone has maximum access and accommodation at polls, eg: signage, language translation, advertising campaigns, technical use challenges. A lot of these rules and restrictions are constructed in such a way that the dominant language/culture/homeowners don't have any problems meeting them, thus offering an easily defensible reasoning behind them. It seems totally reasonable to assume everyone has ID - but if you don't drive, and are well established in a community you probably won't need ID to conduct life. The reality with the importance of the chief federal executive office and how the election swings on such narrow margins in certain states, this is a problem that constitutional we just aren't able to easily solve - deliberately so, that is the constitutional order constructed on purpose.