[wtbob]

Requiring ID to exercise the right to vote is no more 'needlessly restrictive' than requiring it to exercise the right to bear arms or the right to drink. Canada, Germany, Switzerland & the Netherlands are among the countries which require ID to vote, and none of those is a dark dystopia of voter restriction.

[mattzito]

I would be completely fine with requiring ID to vote if that ID was provided to you at birth or the age of majority, maintained at little to no cost by the state, and was convenient to replace or update due to marital or name change.

Instead, the states that are implementing voter ID laws are primarily states that used techniques like poll tests to disenfranchise minority voters, have limited access to ID issuing facilities in areas where voters tend to lack ID, and require documentation for issuance that people may not possess.

Seen through that lens, it's difficult to see America's regional interest in voter ID as anything other than a disingenuous attempt to continue to disenfranchise minority voters.

[surge]

Sorry, no, that argument is baseless and "fake news" to coin the term. Anyone who looks into it or lives in the state knows it's so easy to get an ID in NC and you have months to get it done between election days. It's even free if it's not tied to a DL. It's seriously no harder than registering to vote, and you can do both at the same time.

https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/driver/id/

Most of the commentary about voter ID laws here is from ignorant politically motivated journalists who find it easy to look down and judge southern states because everything they're doing must be racist and we're morally superior in every way. They don't even bother to look at what it's arguing. Sorry, but it gets a little tiring, and when it comes to this attitude of regarding southerners as ignorant and prejudice it's often the most ironic example of the pot calling the kettle black. It's harder to do something so basic as get utilities turned on in a new apartment to say nothing of a passport, and an ID would be required anyway for that, that anyone of basic competence can do it and it isn't some great imposition on them. It's not a literacy test or requiring proof of land ownership or anything like that.

[ConceptJunkie]

Then why aren't all the businesses and banks and insurance companies who also require an ID not being prosecuted for placing an undue burden on minorities. If what you are saying is right, then it should be an open-and-shut case. Right?

[rocqua]

Regarding the Netherlands, everyone aged 14 or older is required to always carry ID. This means that here, voter ID laws won't be restrictive because essentially everyone has ID. Germany also seems to have similar laws.

The point being, whether voter ID is restrictive depends on how widespread accepted ID is, and what the barriers to getting such ID are. I recall that, much like gerrymandering, there are cases where US state legislators explicitly demanded demographic information on ID ownership before moving forward with voter ID laws.

That is to say, there isn't just correlation between voter-id proposals and partisan advantage, there are clear signs of actual intent.

[TheCoelacanth]

Those countries didn't specifically design their ID requirements to prevent black people from voting like the Carolinas were proven in court to have done.

[binarycrusader]

It is needlessly restrictive when the system is simultaneously designed to make it difficult for specific parts of the populace to get identification and when its enforcement is not uniform but selective.

Furthermore, in the absence of any widespread voter fraud, what purpose does it serve or accomplish other than to intimidate or disenfranchise voters? Voter ID only makes sense when there are concerns about fraudulent activity.