My form of reasoning requires a modicum of common sense. And a constitution and a supreme court to strike down your hypothetical hyperbole.
A constitution and supreme court have nothing to do with the meaning of what you said, which was that a law establishing what constitutes a valid voter is not disenfranchisement.
My examples were indeed hypothetical, as are all examples until they actually become law.
But not hyperbole. After all, there once was a time when women could not vote. They were disenfranchised.
And blacks could not vote. They were disenfranchised.
If any definition of a valid voter excludes certain people, those certain people are disenfranchised.