When it comes to voter ID, the devil is in the details. I'm a poll worker in Virginia and think our ID laws are pretty fair. We accept driver's licenses and passports, sure, but we also take employer photo ID, any current Virginia school ID, and even old Virginia driver's licenses up to a year after expiration. If a state gives affordances like these to make it easy for people to fulfill the ID requirement, I don't see what the problem is.
And I don't think fraud is a particularly good reason to be for voter ID. The ID requirement seems to speed the line along. We don't need people to spell out their names, especially for non-native English speakers with uncommon or foreign names. The security argument for voter ID strikes me as bogus, but it has a place for efficiency and accessibility.
The problem is not at the point of acceptance, it's at the point of issuance. An egregious violator is Alabama, which systematically closed DMVs in Black counties [1].
The point of modern voting suppression is it's designed such that each hurdle on its own looks reasonable to people new to the issue. But the aggregate is intended to suppress voters in a targeted way. The architects of these programs even publicly say as much, it's not a secret.
Without making the direct comparison, it's worth noting that the Jim Crow voter suppression laws similarly evolved from humble beginnings. That's why it's important to watch the trend line, and these laws do not trend in the direction of more voter participation.
I don't think we're disagreeing here. I did say the devil is in the details. I'm putting forth Virginia as a state that does it well (i.e., there are multiple independent sources of valid ID, so we can't pull Alabama-like DMV shenanigans), and pointing out that voter ID has value in ways not often discussed, particularly in making the voter check-in process go more smoothly.
There are interesting trade-offs to consider in the voter ID discussion.
This is also why, until the Roberts court gutted the VRA, the courts looked at outcomes of policies and not just intent -- anyone can say the intent was to stop fraud, but if the outcomes are suppression, that used to matter. No more, and that's why state legislatures have jumped at the chance to enact so many laws that "stop fraud" (a problem for which there has not been, and still does not have, any evidence.)
I don't know anything about Virginia, but based on your comment alone I see clearly what the problem is. What you described is a system that disenfranchises everyone that satisfies tree simple rules: doesn't drive, don't travel internationally, and don't work for a large company. E.g. urban poor service-industry worker (outside of chains, no restaurant issues employer IDs).
>What you described is a system that disenfranchises everyone that satisfies tree simple rules: doesn't drive, don't travel internationally, and don't work for a large company. E.g. urban poor service-industry worker (outside of chains, no restaurant issues employer IDs).
If you took a few moments to look up our voter ID requirements, you'd find that your characterization is totally unfair and inaccurate. We also accept utility bills, government checks (i.e., for those on government assistance), and a signed affidavit saying you have an ID. I'm a Virginia homer through and through; I think we do voter ID the right way.
Any citizen or legal resident can obtain a state Real ID compliant card even if they don't drive, travel, or work. Most states offer reduced or free fees for low income individuals.
And I don't think fraud is a particularly good reason to be for voter ID. The ID requirement seems to speed the line along. We don't need people to spell out their names, especially for non-native English speakers with uncommon or foreign names. The security argument for voter ID strikes me as bogus, but it has a place for efficiency and accessibility.