1/ There’s this thing in stats called "Type I vs. Type II" error. Type I error is referred to as the “false positive” and Type II the “false negative”. In law, that translates to the innocent man being convicted (Type I) vs. the guilty man going free (Type II). @letamericavote
2/ Our judicial preference for Type II error is embodied in the concept of “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. As horrible as it is, most would rather see a serial killer go free than an innocent man be put to death.
3/ I return to this concept over & over when I read abt voting restrictions, which necessarily weigh the possibility of a fraudulent vote vs. a legitimate voter being disenfranchised. IOW: Is it better to disenfranchise a legal voter (Type I) or allow an illegal vote (Type II)?
4/ For the sake of argument, let’s say some degree of impersonation voter fraud occurs but it’s hard to quantify. Nevertheless, study after study confirm that it is EXTREMELY rare, like on the order of 0.0003%. brennancenter.org/analysis/debun…
5/ On the flip side, we can pretty easily measure the impact of a clamp down, whether it’s through stringent voter ID laws, poll book purges, elimination of early voting, or the closing of polls in select (read: Democratic) precincts. 
6/ While the number of voters impacted varies law by law & state by state, the numbers are far from negligible. For example:
7/ Matching ID ownership with voter registration files, the GAO estimates that the proportion of eligible voters without a valid ID ranges from 5% to 16%. gao.gov/assets/670/665…
8/ Studies of 2016 election determined that 11.2% of eligible nonvoting registrants were deterred by the Wisconsin’s voter ID law. elections.wiscweb.wisc.edu/wp-content/upl…
9/ More recently, reports suggest that voter purges in Indiana and Georgia cut close to 10% of registered voters.
10/ While a precise calculation may remain elusive, it is abundantly clear that strict voting regulations are often crafted with surgical precision to disproportionately impact older voters, poor communities and minority voters.
11/ It's hard to imagine a right more fundamental to democracy than voting. As such, any abridging action should be held to the more exacting standard of STRICT SCRUTINY (narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state purpose) as opposed to the less demanding rational basis test.
12/ Factoring strict scrutiny, due process & historical preferences for Type II error when fundamental rights are involved, it's impossible to reconcile disproportionate disenfranchisement of 5-15% of mostly poor & minority voters to prevent an event that virtually never happens.
13/ I am constantly amazed that the very same people who are *SO* anti-regulation when it comes to financial shenanigans, corporate pollution, and gun control are A-O-K with extreme voter requirement. It's so clearly inconsistent, revealing a selective hypocrisy:
14/END You simply cannot claim to be a proponent of free and unfettered fundamental rights if you’re OK with disenfranchising large swaths of your fellow citizens simply because you don’t like the way they vote. #RegisterToVote @LetAmericaVote votesaveamerica.com
Kindly unroll Mr. @threadreaderapp.
