late wrote:"The laws that disenfranchised Black Americans in the South and established Jim Crow did not actually say they were disenfranchising Black Americans and creating a one-party racist state.
The problem here is that it mistakes both the nature and the operation of Jim Crow voting laws. There was no statute that said, “Black people cannot vote.” Instead, Southern lawmakers spun a web of restrictions and regulations meant to catch most Blacks (as well as many whites) and keep them out of the electorate.
“Those who sought to prune the Southern electorate were hampered by various constitutional restrictions,” the historian J. Morgan Kousser explained in his 1974 book, “The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910.”
It took three decades of struggle, and violence, before Southern elites could reclaim dominance over Southern politics. No particular restriction was decisive. The process was halting, contingent and contested, consolidating in different places at different times. It was only when the final pieces fell into place that the full picture of what took place was clear.
Put a little differently, the thing about Jim Crow is that it wasn’t “Jim Crow” until, one day, it was."
The grandfather clauses were eventually caught for what they were (a way to leave the Constitution without effect) and illegalized during Jim Crow itself (the Guinn case that overturned OK's clause, 1915). You should probably read the landmark ruling yourself:https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep238347/
Then there were several other cases (the TX primary cases and a follow-up to Guinn in 1938) that also lead to a gradual pushback against the voting restrictions in place during Jim Crow. Of course, having no clear Federal law on the matter made the process much slower as it would then turn into a whack-a-mole sort of situation where Southern states would find a new way to effectively disenfranchise voters based on their race and those fighting these policies would be forced to have the SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution (to often nullify these laws), a process that could take several years, and is why the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 during the dismantlement of the Jim Crow system.
A different matter would be things like separate and equal, as it was actually upheld by the SCOTUS under the fiction that it was possible (in practice) to have something like that and was not surreptitious at all. That
was explicit, and with even worse consequences for the daily lives of African Americans.
Now, as for GA's election law: Has it been challenged in court? I find it hard to see how some of its restrictions would stand as they go beyond simply the business necessity of making sure the principle of "one person, one vote" is upheld. For instance, under its laws bringing your ID to vote is not enough, if your name in your ID doesn't exactly match what you filled in your voter registration form, then you can't vote. This is the case even if your SSN or driver's license number matches what you filled in the voter registration form, and is most certainly excessive.