Part of the problem is that since the Constitution authorizes states to regulate elections (except in FL, of course... ) there is no uniform standard, encouraging the belief ones own system is flawless but those in enemy territory are rife with corruption. If memory serves, the places I voted in TX just compared signatures to those on registration cards (requiring photo ID when cards were absent/unsigned,) hence my comment about stealing someones vote by stealing their card: Back home, county registrars mail them out a few months before elections, so anyone could raid mailboxes then fraudulently vote repeatedly (while the cards' rightful owners would be unable to vote at all.) That has somewhat horrified me since my first election, but maybe they had a list of past signatures I did not notice then and do not recall now.


Yeah, I really do not see what objection is possible under those conditions; SOME proof of voter identity is neither unreasonable nor novel.

The development of photo ID laws has been interesting. As I recall, IN led the way, and cries of "poll tax!" originated there, because the law did not provide for IDs to be issued at no charge. However, I did a little googling the last time it came up on RAFO, and every state photo voting ID law I found (including Indianas) explicitly requires IDs be issued at no charge to voters (beyond general state sales tax etc.; contrary to popular belief, getting something from the government does not make it free.) Cynical liberal that I am, I did not expect Republicans to cave on what always struck me as a Trojan horse for disenfranchising the poor, but they have apparently done just that, strongly suggesting fears of fraud were sincere, whether or not justified.

With that off the table, I honestly cannot see what debate remains, because there is some justification for fraud fears, if only potential fraud.