I read the link in the original post, from the National Review. It is an analysis of actions taken by federal agencies to regulate federal forms and what the details of those forms may be. Everyone who disagrees with the author's opinion is labeled as a Leftist, a member of a cadre etc. The issue is really how much proof is needed to qualify to vote in an election. Surely 160 years ago there was none. You were a white male citizen of age 21 by your own word, you could vote. No women nor negroes need attempt.

Now we have states that have differing levels of scrutiny. That is fine. What is an issue is whether the scrutiny is excessive or arbitrary. How about you must register your DNA in a state controlled database before being allowed to vote. That way we can be sure you are not a felon. Should you be convicted at a later time of a felony we can automatically remove you from the voter eligible list. This certainly accomplishes the goal of reducing voter fraud and all reductions in voter fraud are for the greater good, aren't they?

In the National Review the four recommended stories for me to read next are:
"Yes, Trump University was a Massive Scam"
"Trump isn't Upset by the Obama Era, He's Always been a Wannabe Mussolini"
"Donald Trump Three Times Fails to Deny the KKK"
and
"Trump vs the First Amendment"

So I guess it is a reliable and thoughtful source