[dane-pgp]

Where do you need a vaccine card to leave the house? There may be private business premises that you can't enter without a vaccine card, but entering those premises isn't a constitutional right, whereas voting is, so restricting one but not the other makes sense.

In any case, the resistance isn't against voter ID itself, it's against the policies that are inevitably put in place to make those IDs harder to obtain for supporters of one party in comparison to another. If there weren't so many recent examples of states selectively closing down polling places[0][1] then maybe you could claim with a straight face that the ID requirements won't be abused, but there is no excuse for such naivety now.

[0] https://civilrights.org/democracy-diverted/

[1] https://texasyds.org/texas-republicans-plan-to-reduce-pollin...

[josephcsible]

> Where do you need a vaccine card to leave the house?

In New York, isn't it mandatory to show your vaccine card to go into any building that isn't your house?

> it's against the policies that are inevitably put in place to make those IDs harder to obtain for supporters of one party in comparison to another.

Which policies are these?

[dane-pgp]

> In New York, isn't it mandatory to show your vaccine card to go into any building that isn't your house?

That doesn't prevent you leaving your house, and are people really checking the vaccine passes of friends who visit their home? I suspect the rules are much less strict than the original comment suggested.

> Which policies are these?

By making the issuance (and renewal) of IDs require attending a government building, and limiting the locations of those buildings and the times they are open, it can be made disproportionately difficult for poor and working people to obtain those IDs, just like the removal of polling places. A state can also invent entirely new types of excuses, like "paper shortages".[0]

[0] https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/590213-texas-blames...

[josephcsible]

> That doesn't prevent you leaving your house

I think the difference between being allowed to leave your house and being allowed to go into buildings that aren't your house is minor enough that the analogy still works.

> are people really checking the vaccine passes of friends who visit their home?

If bad laws are okay just because some people will ignore them, then even if voter ID is a bad law, then let's just pass it anyway and let the pollworkers ignore it.

> A state can also invent entirely new types of excuses, like "paper shortages".

If you needed that paper form to register to vote, then I'd agree that's a problem. But you don't: https://vrapp.sos.state.tx.us/index.asp

[dane-pgp]

> If bad laws are okay

The reason I asked if people are checking vaccine passes when their friends visit them is because I don't actually believe this law exists at all, not because I think people are breaking it. It's possible that New York does require this, but if it doesn't, I think "You're prevented from accessing some non-essential buildings" isn't fairly analogized to "You can't leave your house".

> If you needed that paper form to register to vote, then I'd agree that's a problem.

If people's right to vote is contingent on the availability and non-discrimination of a web service (which can and will change without the need for any further legislation to pass) then we've already lost the battle against disenfranchisement.

[josephcsible]

> The reason I asked if people are checking vaccine passes when their friends visit them is because I don't actually believe this law exists at all, not because I think people are breaking it. It's possible that New York does require this, but if it doesn't, I think "You're prevented from accessing some non-essential buildings" isn't fairly analogized to "You can't leave your house".

To be clear, just showing the vaccine card isn't good enough. You need to show a photo ID too, to prove that you're the person the vaccine card belongs to. And how much of society is it acceptable to lock people without IDs out of if we insist that it's necessary to let people vote without one?

> non-discrimination of a web service

How is a Web version of a form more subject to discrimination than a paper one is?

[dane-pgp]

> How is a Web version of a form more subject to discrimination than a paper one is?

I'm sure it would be possible to "accidentally" introduce bugs where the fonts don't render on older platforms (owned by poorer people), for example, and there could be some geo-IP "caching" system that ends up slowing down requests for people in certain parts of the state.

In any case, the web version doesn't have to be more subject to discrimination, just as subject to discrimination as the (selectively available) paper form already is. Also, if the party in power found that their voters were more likely to register using the online form than the paper form, you can bet they would make the paper form harder to acquire (and vice versa).