I was referring to recent news out of North Dakota and Georgia.  https://twitter.com/kfogel/status/1055871227917668352, for example.  And https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/kemp-sued-over-georgias-exact-match-voter-registration-schem... .  Putting pointless and statistically discriminatory hurdles in front of voters in order to discourage them by reducing the "expected value" of voting (e.g., ease-of-voting * probability-that-they-will-let-my-vote-be-counted) is voter suppression.  Since there is virtually no actual voter fraud in the U.S., as the penalties for engaging in voter fraud are quite high and the incentive is low, there is no logical explanation for officials to take these measures *other* than a desire to affect the outcomes of elections in a partisan way.

Er.  What I'm saying here isn't particularly original -- these arguments are widely available from many sources, and are much in the news lately.  So I was surprised by your question, and wonder if you had already considered these things and for some reason don't consider them to be voter suppression.  If so, we could skip ahead straight to that discussion, without me reiterating in detail points that you've already heard made elsewhere :-).