Didn't mean to avoid the question, as I've said before I don't think it's a big deal to require an ID to vote. And I think it's reasonable to expect voters to get one if they don't have one.
Yes and the state has an obligation to protect your right to vote by NOT allowing others to impersonate you or otherwise defraud your legitimate vote.
They also have an obligation to protect your right to vote by not denying your right to vote. A right, you may fail to understand is inherent, it resides within. We need not prove our legitimate rights every time a political group issues a fiat order. If Aunt Jemima is legitmately registered to vote, then why is it that her signature is not sufficient proof of identity? She has to show a card with a photo that says she is Aunt Jemima. Supposing her ID is perfect but her signature isn't? Oh what to do? Maybe we should solve this in a way that you can appreciate. You go up to a polling place and the poll worker looks at you. If you are not white, forget it, you can't vote. But then it gets tough. A white person might not vote for the Mittmeister, so the pollworker gets to use judgement. Referring to Joe Arpaiao's vote rejection guide, he looks for any signs of independent thought and reason that may reside in the person of the potential voter. If any such signs are found, he is turned away! There you go. 100% vote for the candidate of your choice! Welcome to Political Westworld!
Ok, then again, we're in agreement here. So thus far no one here is really arguing it should not happen.
Ok, what about the right to purchase alcohol? You can't just skip the challenging example and quote the one that you can counter with smooth talking. Heck, you need ID when you check into a hotel, when you use a credit card, when you pick up your child from daycare if the admin there doesn't know you. When you go to the doctor the first time. You need ID when you open a checking account. You need ID when you board a plane. Would you care to dispute any of those? The sole and obvious purpose to the ID card is to assure you are the person you are claiming to be. Why does it seem like this should not be the case when you are going to cast a vote in your name?
But we are in disagreement on the reason why reps are pushing this, they are hoping to keep legal dems from voting, which is reprehensible.
How could they keep legal democrats from voting by simply requiring an ID card, if everyone has access to getting an ID card at no cost?
That's CRAZY! We should have photo ID for EVERYTHING... EXCEPT VOTING!! I foresee the day when Americans need to "have your papers" on you at all times... even to use a public toilet... except for voting day, that is. (Only an idiot would think otherwise.)
Should an ID suffice, or should a person also sign the register and have his signature matched against the signature on file for verification? (which is what is done in NY and CT, for example)