Let's talk about the article, then.
First of all, let's agree that this source is completely biased and is pitching a narrative. I think it's completely fair to state that. So its journalistic integrity is already suspect.
Second, a huge chunk of the "references" found in the article are...to other articles...on the same website...and written by the same author. So quite a bit of circle jerk going on here. Strike two.
But on these supporting articles, I've hopped over to a few and skimmed them. The outrageous claims of how "hard" it is to get a voter I.D. in Wisconsin (https://thinkprogress.org/this-is-how-hard-it-is-to-get-a-voter-id-in-wisconsin-8be821ef8a88#.oeqe4mnxz) are overblown to a hilarious degree. You need a state issued I.D. card, which is not hard to obtain at all. A second article from a different website about one of the linchpins of their complaint featured hearsay from one individual that was brushed aside during the trial. Voter I.D. laws were upheld as constitutional.
Things aren't looking good. But that's the face value, let's look at how they use statistics, since most of the things they're citing are from stupidly liberal publications.
Ah yes, one of my favorite tricks, the "We aren't going to compare the same time scale" move:
Quote
During governor Charlie Crist’s four years in office, more than 150,000 people had their rights restored...In [Scott's] first term as governor, fewer than 1,600 people have had their rights restored.
Having to play the numbers in order to make your argument look bigger?
Oh, I know, reinforce the claim that the majority of criminals are black. That was a solid play in the Florida section. The cry that felons cannot vote is...an interesting argument. Not really one I'm going to try to make either way here. But to claim that stopping former criminals from voting is purely on the books to disenfranchise minorities is a poor argument at best. If you can't think of a reason why former criminals should have some rights suspended that holds at least SOME water, you aren't trying hard enough. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue, so to paint it as a one-dimensional play is weak at best and disingenuous on average. At worst it's reverse racist. Choke on your own claims of micro-aggressions.
North Carolina might actually have a complaint.
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/In-The-States/Know-Your-Rights-State-Laws-on-Employee-Time-Off-to-VoteAccording to the AFL-CIO, North Carolina doesn't grant workers any time off to vote. Neither does Florida, but apparently most local areas do have rules (Wisconsin gives 3 hours). But we're here about North Carolina, seeing as the OP's article didn't mention poll hours as a problem for Florida, so let's get down to brass tacks.
North Carolina limiting polling hours could obviously be seen as voter suppression. Unless there is a disastrously low number of volunteers or poll workers for this cycle, which is a Google mission that might take longer than 30 seconds, there's no good reason to limit the number of hours polls are open unless you're trying to limit the number of people who might have access to those polls. And naturally, limited hours hurts those who work jobs that may not be 9-5. Like low income workers. Who tend to be black. Students have no fucking excuse, so don't play that card to me.
So we might have one legitimate example of election fixing out of three examples presented. Here's my question: where's the excuse for Pennsylvania, which went blue in consecutive elections as far back as I was willing to check (not far tbh)? How about Ohio, which went blue for both of Obama's wins? Or the good ol' mitten, Michigan, where I gave plenty of shit to my non-political friends over their election of a meme as president? The bottom line is this: excuses can be made for either party in a swing state. The trend that was presented by the election of Trump is clear, despite whatever excuses liberal media wants to throw at us: the nation rejected Hillary. Why? I dunno. Being scummy, being a woman, being a liberal, hating black people...I can't tell you. Pick your poison. What I can tell you is that the widespread trend this electoral cycle cannot be easily explained away by "voter suppression" or by claims of cheating. The nation made a statement, and that statement was that they preferred Trump over Hillary.