By contrast, one has to wonder what underlies his assertion in his book some six years later that he got it wrong. The few words he writes—that the law “was a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention”—seem sloppy and ill-considered. In a book replete with footnotes, he doesn’t bother to cite any support for his proposition. Nor does the stark dichotomy he posits seem a sound one: As his opinion recognized, any fraud-prevention measure will have the incidental effect of deterring some people from voting.