Viper1 has already pointed out that "many of the billboards are in minority neighborhoods" does not necessarily imply heavy targeting of minority communities ...

Beyond that, I could be wrong but I suspect that these billboards were targeted to communities with the greatest number of questionable voter registrations; because that is what I would do. If you cross-referenced voter registration lists with names that were unlikely to be real people (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Eric Cartman, etc.), or addresses that didn't actually exist, I suspect you'd find that questionable voter registrations tended to happen in areas with higher population density because it is easier to hide; and also were dramatically more common in close districts and swing states.

So 71% of Hispanics were misrepresenting their own views? They secretly want disenfranchise... Hispanics? Clearly they don't think these laws are going to affect their ability to vote, presumably because they already live in a society where you have to present an ID to do just about anything anyway.

I think something to consider is, "who and for what purpose was this article created for"

I have a feeling the person who wrote this article went about looking for where all these billboards where in the hopes of finding that it was racist.

He probably had an excel spreadsheet up with just 2 columns.
1. Billboard [yes, no]
2. Demographic [poor, rich]

You can prove any survery you want true when you go about searching for it. As someone said, these billboards could and most likely were placed wherever voter fraud was most suspected and/or unofficially documented in the past.

Or heck, maybe it was even more elementary in that the billboards were only posted in the cheapest areas that billboards cost. What if the group putting these up was only allowed so much money for this, or had only so much money for this, and so they wanted to put it in the most places possible. Thus they found the cheapest places and those ended up being in poor regions.

As you can see, there could be many reasons, but I fear the author of this article came in trying to find racism and thus found it, in his eyes.

Seems i can't access the link you sent me, something about cookies.

Perhaps something has changed, but i'm talking about it with co-workers right now (so we're not just electioneering), and it was at one point that it was only when the DMV was operating, which is only on driver's license issuing days, which is only Two days a week and every other Saturday.

It's worth noting that i'm against how the laws are being implemented, not against the idea of voter ID altogether. Similar to how one could say i'm opposed to Obamacare but not to universal health care. I see these laws as generally maliciously intended, because some Republicans have gone on record talking about how this is good for them from an electoral perspective.

Again... checking the department of transportations website for Pennslvania for random counties, this time for Drivers Liscense issueing days.

It shows that you can get Drivers Liscenses issued to you far more then that.

Regardless of which... what you previously said was four days a month.

Except that's not what you've said in this thread... which is why it's hard to take you seriously when you make these arguements.

You have constantly been argueing the law is racist in of and by itself.

"SHHHH, nobody likes facts"

And I'm sure you realize this from when consoles release.  I'm sure you've seen this quote before"

"in my town (undisclosed) which is very big, I went to the store and there were X amount of consoles available, thus this must be true everywhere"   Thus VGChartz numbers are wrong and the console is over/under tracked.

that doesnt show malicous intent. it show they think democrats are more likely to commit voter fraud. so by preventing voter fraud, it will help republicans win.

its really quite simple... if you just take off your hyper-partison glasses

The law is, not what the law is trying to implement. Especially the one in Pennsylvania which is imposing too-strict of standards