[Retric]

The common solution when little documentation exists is to apply ink at voting booths. Something that comes off in a few days, but otherwise bonds to the top layer of people’s skin. That’s plenty for one person one vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_ink

As to having non residents vote, vastly more eligible voters don’t vote than people ineligible to vote. Honestly, as much hoopla as this gets it’s clear from recent elections it’s a non issue. Look for actual examples of this happening and your coming up empty.

[kayaeb]

A paranoid individual might claim that this ink could be tampered with or replaced with washable ink.

Can the same argument not be made for requiring voter IDs? youeseh I'm replying to says it's "few numbers" adding up. Another thread from sverige in this tree links vox and nyt saying that requiring ID has small numbers effect of turnout. So saying that their concern of voter fraud is a small numbers thing kind of lacks heft as an argument.

If these are both the case, then why not go with the requirement (and possibly make the requirement "easier" by issuing IDs at the same time/place) so there's no possibility of contesting the election results with regard to this particular issue?

[XorNot]

In person voter fraud requires a large base of conspirators who are never caught, committing a federal crime on behalf of a political actor who also needs to somehow incentivize them to do so without being caught.

Whereas suppressing turn out just requires making it difficult for someone to have a bunch of ID they normally don't need on them in any part of their lives.

These laws are never just "photo ID" - they're always a box truck of weird edge rules about the type of ID.