While some of the laws may be defacto racist, the implication that they are deliberately racist needs appropriate citations (more than just a link to the wikipedia article on voter suppression). And since your question seems to imply that all such laws are about voter suppression (with implications of racism to boot), I would expect some rather damning evidence to be presented.

@JaredSmith I think that would be too broad for this question. The Wiki link has some details, eg 'new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that [...] legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent'; 'If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election'; etc. If you seriously doubt the fact that Republicans purposefully suppress minority votes - a fact supported by court decisions and admitted to by some Republicans themselves - feel free to open a question about it here or at skeptics.SE.

@JaredSmith BTW I didn't call these voter suppression tacticts racist. For some Republicans, the motivation is very likely racism. For others, it's merely a tactic to win elections. The (desired) impact is of course the same in either case: the suppression of minority votes.

I'm not saying it's not the case, I'm saying it's not a given: it needs to be appropriately cited. Also, there are a lot of e.g. voter ID laws, and a few specific known cases of deliberately targeting minority voters (which I at least would call racism, even if statistically motivated), but your question seems to be painting all such laws with a rather broad brush. If presenting sufficient evidence in your question makes it too broad, then the question itself is too broad to fit into the context of a stack exchange site.

Let me put it another way, if you had written the question as "Have the Democrats ever done things like x and y that some Republicans did here and here (with appropriate links)?" then I would not have an objection. Avoids attributing the behaviors to all Republicans, avoids imputing motive to all e.g. voter ID laws, restricts the conversation to known instances of abuse/ill intent, etc.

@JaredSmith I don't think that my question does that; it lists a number of actions which have been used to deliberately suppress votes to clarify what sort of issues I'm looking for in answers. But the question doesn't say that these tactics are always used to deliberately suppress minority votes.

@JaredSmith (I do think they are always used that way, because there are few legitimate reasons for them, and the effect of their specific implementation is clearly impacting some demographics more than others (while at the same time they could be implemented differently to not have that effect); but that's not really relevant for the question here; this or this question are more about that; if you want a more general answer, I would suggest to open a new question).

I'm not even convinced it would be possible for Democrats to engage in the same type of wide-spread voter suppression; minorities are far easier to suppress due to their habit of clustering together.

@MichaelJ. The article is well sourced and easier to link to than the various individual sources. If you doubt any specific facts, feel free to open a question here or at skeptics.SE. And I was referring to voting time restrictions: "Republican lawmakers requested data on various voting practices, broken down by race [...] they cut back on early voting [...] Later, the North Carolina GOP sent out a press release celebrating the decline in early voting by African Americans"

@MichaelJ. Non-wiki link: 'The data also showed that black voters were more likely to make use of early voting — particularly the first seven days out of North Carolina's 17-day voting period. So lawmakers eliminated these seven days of voting. "After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days," the court found.'

@tim - How does a 'general assembly' remove the first week of early voting? Do they say early voting begins on Oct. 16th but you can't cast your ballot until Oct. 23rd?

I agree with Jared. Without evidence that the intent of the voting laws mentioned is to suppress voting and not to ensure a fair election then this question is just a back door means to attempt to legitimize unproven democratic party talking points. Additionally, the question attempts to defame republicans without evidence and as has been done with questions and answers with far more evidence than provided in this question that make liberals/democrats look bad; should be closed.

@Dunk The North Carolina General Assembly eliminated the first week of early voting (and Sunday voting) because the race data they requested told them that is when black people vote (the state also argued that that was their reason). The reason for black early and Sunday voting are historical as well as socioeconomic as outlined in the links.

@JaredSmith - One occasional screwup can be understood. But where persistent racism is concerned, I generally argue that Gray's Law applies: "Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." At some point, it really stops mattering what the intent was. We don't need to #notalllaws here to coddle the feelings of the ink. Laws aren't people with feelings, unlike the real-life people they affect.

@Dunk And again, I linked to evidence showing that these sort of laws were enacted "with discriminatory intent" and targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision". There is nothing defamatory about laying out facts. If you doubt the evidence, please open a question about it.

@T.E.D. speaking of real people with real feelings, I live in a Red state. Regardless of my personal opinions, most of my friends, family, and coworkers identify as Republican. Virtually all of them support voter ID laws. Are you suggesting that all of them, all of them, are racists? De facto or de jure?

@JaredSmith - I live in Oklahoma, so odds are I got you beat in redness. Voter ID laws, yes have a tendency to be racist (There are exceptions. Ours in OK actually isn't too bad, as the voter ID card you automatically get from the state when you register is considered acceptable ID). As for making the jump from the racist laws to the people that support them, I don't know your family, so that isn't for me to say.

Prior to the Southern Realignment of 1964, the Democratic Party was the more socially conservative, racist, and Southern-centric party. They would have been the party more likely to commit voter suppression up until roughly this year. That is why, if I've correctly surmised the intent and assumptions of this question, it should have asked for any examples since 1964. As agc's answer demonstrates, examples prior to 1964 were common and not hard to find.