This is short termism of the highest order. It's also lazy politics. It offers the GOP a crutch to rely on instead of engaging these voters and broadening beyond the Southern strategy. If you won 40% of the minority vote while winning 65% of the white vote you're in good shape.
This is the thing though - people as groups often fail to think long-term in a whole range of other areas. Right now, the GOP passes these laws and sees little to no political costs, and it becomes irresistible. If you look at just how many restrictive changes Republicans are willing to make across the country, you can also see a very significant degree of comfort in it. Some of these ideas they have will barely move the needle in their direction, yet they do it anyway knowing it will look bad. They are willing to rack up PR problems because they no longer give a crap. Why should, for instance, the NCGOP care what their actions look like? Favorable geography and gerrymandering have conspired to give them nearly unbreakable
(for now) majorities. In fact, these politicians are actually kind of acting like companies with ironclad monopolies. Since there is no real competition, they increasingly push the boundaries of what is normally acceptable. Rarely do they get punished for it, and even when they do, it's unevenly distributed. Texas may get put back under preclearance, yet North Carolina, whose actions were even more despicable and just as, if not more transparent, got a pass from the 4th circuit
(in terms of preclearance)It also doesn't help that the GOP has developed a moral view of this as well - that if voters want to vote, they will do what it takes, and that voting shouldn't be easy so that the electorate has more informed people. There might be an argument in that, but it doesn't justify blatant partisan maneuvers like voter suppression
(even if they think it does)--
As for the article, I feel it is worth mentioning that SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit. There was a lot of wrangling over who had the right to petition the court - the state AG/Gov or the legislature, and so the USSC decided to deny it for now. It can and probably will be revived sometime in the future.
