Here's a tale of two headlines on a Voter ID law recently being upheld.
WSJ: A Victory for Voter ID
NYT: In PA, a Missed Chance to Reject Voting Barriers
A "Missed Chance" to "Reject" ... Voting "Barriers".
For one thing, they're playing out of the Lakoff book. "Don't use terms that have a positive connotation for the opposition viewpoint." But it sounds so awkward that they have to be at least a little uncomfortable putting it that way -- confident only in the idea that their academic advisor is right about the impact.
Voter ID ... a way to ensure that the person who is voting is the person who says he is voting. Most Americans are solidly behind this. And as usual, the ones who aren't are Democrats -- and not the Democrat voters themselves, mind you. It's the party.
One has to ask why. And they'll tell you all kinds of things ... talking points which are all spelled out in the NYT article. Same ones, over and over. Arguments that sound like arguments in the same way that the picture of the pizza on the box looks like the pizza inside. (#1, it doesn't, and #2, the arguments satisfy with the same discrepancy toward what they supposedly represent as eating the box instead of the pizza).
Ultimately, it boils down to this. When you try to hold people accountable, the people who complain the loudest are the people who don't want to be held accountable.
As for the alleged voting barriers themselves ....
"The voter ID requirement does not specifically single out any class or group and applies uniformly to all, he wrote. But what Republicans know, and what the judge should have realized, was that many voters won’t be able to participate in the democratic process any longer. Some won’t show up at the polls, unwilling to leap the hurdle placed before them, while others will try to vote and find their ballots rejected." [em, mine]
There is a huge difference between "won't be able to" and "unwilling to". Your unwillingness to follow the rules like the rest of us doesn't excuse leaving a giant door open for voter fraud.