Yes, God bless America. It is time we used picture ids for voting -- just like most of the other democracies on the face of the earth.
The important thing is that you tacitly acknowledge that your party only wins if it can stifle turnout with voter restrictions. Such winning...
Why don't you look into the history of gerrymandering. It has mostly been done by Democrats... and only recently by Republicans.
https://vip.sos.nd.gov/idrequirements.aspx If an individual’s valid form of identification does not include the North Dakota residential address or date of birth, or the North Dakota residential address is not current, the individual may supplement the identification with a current utility bill; a current bank statement; a check or a document issued by a federal, state, local, or tribal government (including those issued by BIA for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address); or a paycheck. If a North Dakota resident doesn't have a residential address, they can provide supplemental documentation in order to vote. You basically just need some form of proof that you exist in the state. I'm all for voter ID laws, but I don't think you should have to have a residential address to vote.
I would side with the Supreme Court on the states ability/right to set additional documentation requirements- but disagree with the implementation schedule. Ginsberg and Kagan argue that the the same requirements that were used to vote in the primary should be allowed to vote in the final election- and then the additional requirements can kick in for the next election, which gives time for orderly compliance. I dont see the harm in that or why that would be unreasonable. I do think that you could allow one-time provisional certification as some states do. ie. if you dont present all the required documentation during a time of transition, you can still vote but your vote is included in a list of votes subject to further verification if it is a close election where those votes could determine it.
It certainly seems reasonable that Native Americans would be allowed to show documentation issued by their tribal government instead of a normal ID if they don't have a residential address. But you won't find that info in most articles because it doesn't fit the narrative.
I think you just violated your own principle when you said it was okay for some citizens to lose their right to vote because they don't have an address in return for the security of potentially eliminating a small amount of electoral fraud. Is there actual evidence that electoral fraud is rampant? I have seen several studies that show it's a small percentage; but to use that logic, most gun owners are responsible - but a few have decided to shoot up schools and as a result millions of children are inconvenienced with active shooter drills. So guns should be banned.