Everything in the voting system has changed. Citizen's United, the voting rights act was neutered, gerrymandering is constitutional now in many states...
The status quo didn't change. Money was in politics before Citizen's United and it is after. The voting rights act remains in force, though some irrelevant points that no longer apply were allowed to no longer have to be enforced by the Supreme Court. I really don't see what practically changed.
The law. Are we arguing essentialist philosophy here? The things that were seen as implicit by cynics (and observation) were made explicit. We just know all of the megadonors by name now, and monitor their relationships with various candidates (and the ways those candidates can influence the donors' businesses, for possible investment opportunities.)
When you eliminate principles in law, society becomes unmoored. If they eliminate the First Amendment, will we just say "there wasn't ever really total freedom of speech anyway. Remember cancel culture?" That's the most useless possible internet-typical reaction to catastrophe.
Have you looked? Does asking for an ID to prove that you are a legal voter too much now? Did you know that everywhere in the world, except the U.S., you must prove that you are who you are before getting the ballot? There are some exceptions like the purple finger in Iraq, but those are extraordinary and are not examples of proper anything anyways.
Again, I ask, how are people kept from voting? If showing ID is an example, I'm sorry, that's just silly.
Article linked has many, many examples unrelated to voter ID.
I also reject your framing. Unlike some other countries, the United States has a constitutional prohibition on poll taxes, called the 24th Amendment. Regardless of what sophistry SCOTUS might hold, it is empirically self-evident that requiring only forms of ID that cost money is equivalent in outcome to having a poll tax.
This is just so ridiculous that "silly" is the only word to describe a simple requirement to prove that you have the right to vote as a step on the 24th amendment. It can only be demanded by people that want to rig elections.
> Did you know that everywhere in the world, except the U.S., you must prove that you are who you are before getting the ballot?
False. In Canada, a voter with ID can vouch for one other voter, whose name and address are recorded.
Also, you'd have a better point if voter ID laws were not combined with a well-documented campaign to make it more difficult for POC to get IDs. This is classic voter suppression - install a byzantine set of rules that unwanted demographics will have a harder time navigating.
Also, I may point out that disenfranchising eligible voters happens to be voter fraud - carried out by the state.
Fees, limited operating hours when you can get IDs, limited operating locations, limited utility of the ID (if you can't afford a car, paying money to get a driver's license is a bit of a harder sell, while offices issuing non-DL IDs may be hours away from you...)
