[jeffcore]

Individuals most likely not to have the required ID are poor, and while the ID itself may be free of charge, the burden of obtaining it is not. Once you factor in time waiting, traveling and lost wages (many people don't have paid leave in the U.S.), that ID may very well cost them $75 - $400. For those living pay check to pay check, that may be a considerable amount of money. That's not necessarily the same burden as taking time off to vote, as most individuals won't need to, as their polls open early or after working hours unlike a DMV. Most states also have time off to vote laws, and some even require that it's paid time off.

Let's say you want to obtain a voter ID in South Carolina, for example, because you have no other photo ID. You'll need to present a birth certificate. What, can't find yours? Good luck, you'll need a photo ID to obtain a new copy of that birth certificate.

Perhaps you are an 18-year old high schooler in Alabama eligible to vote for the first time. You don't have a driver's license, because you can't afford a car and don't drive. Your closest DMV is 40 miles away and only open one day out of the week. There's no public transportation, so you'll have to coordinate a ride with someone who can take you on a day the DMV is open. Previously, this voter would be able to show up to their polling site on the day of the election with a bank statement and vote.

It would be one thing if voter fraud was prevalent and all these new measures needed enacted, but there isn't. The rate of fraud in U.S. elections is close to zero. Instead, they're yet another set of hurdles voters, particularly minorities and the poor, face when asserting their right to vote.

[trendia]

Once again, in the Supreme Court case, the plaintiffs could not find a single case of voter disenfranchisement due to the ID law.

You're hypotheticals are just that: hypothetical.

[evgen]

And since that time there have been numerous examples of legislative disenfranchisement via restrictive voter ID laws. You really have a hard-on for this one case, as though it somehow makes all forms of voter ID laws somehow magically valid. Law doesn't work that way, and the specifics of how this was implemented in Indiana vs the many other states which have tried even more restrictive forms of voter id and been slapped back by the courts should be a clue to you that this area is far from settled.

These are not hypotheticals, there are specific examples of legislators being caught on the record trying to craft voter ID laws such that they had the greatest effect upon poor and minority voters. We are still waiting on your to address these issues instead of repeatedly posting a link to this one case that happened to be the trigger for all of these laws that have now been found to be illegal.

[trendia]

That's because I'm proposing the law that was found to be legal.

If Law X is legal, and I support Law X, then stop telling me Law Y is illegal -- it's irrelevant.