Are you saying that those facts that I listed are false? Correlation may not equal causation, but it still equals correlation.
I'm saying that "after determining" denotes causation. I am also pointing out again that it will always be the conclusion that anything affects minorities.
Basically, someone, somewhere in the North Carolina legislature asked for the information. Something that I'm sure all legislatures do when dealing with voting as there are federal laws to consider when doing so. You, and the judges on that court, took that datapoint and are treating it as a fact that it was used as the primary source. And the supposed proof is that the laws affect minorities disproportionately in a manner described as "surgical" when they would have found the same thing no matter what shape the law would have taken.
Similarly, "without claims of suppressing minority votes" isn't the same thing as "without actually suppressing minority votes", and I'm really flabbergasted that you would make such an implication given your position in this thread.
It was a simple request. You seemed to have trouble fathoming that this is the default answer to all new voting laws designed to protect against fraud. Please find me a single example where one went through and wasn't condemned on these grounds.
I'm suggesting that you're conflating "in-person voting fraud is grossly exaggerated in the minds of Republican legislators and the cost-benefit ratio just isn't there" and "in-person voting fraud literally never happens".
I believe that you're arguing a point that no one is making.