It’s not paranoia. There is factual evidence voter ID laws have been put in place to harm minority voting. It’s astonishing the person who started this thread with a link to the South Carolina court case is trying to brush off opposition to voter ID laws as paranoia.
This sums up the whole thread.
Since we know from other thread(s) that you don’t read past the first paragraph in long wiki articles, here’s some quotes from your own cite:
-Opponents argue that voter fraud is extremely rare and has been magnified as an issue to create barriers to voter registration and voting that discriminate against minority groups and others who are statistically less likely to possess photo IDs
-Since 2012, 17 states have new voting restrictions in place, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. Lawsuits have been filed against many of these requirements. Critics have argued that the barriers could result in the disenfranchisement of black, Hispanic and other minority voters.
-Five federal lawsuits involving Native Americans have been filed since the Supreme Court 2013 decision on the Voting Rights Act, including three in 2016. Suits in North Dakota, Utah, South Dakota and Arizona claim that new voting rules passed in these majority-Republican states are discriminatory and could reduce voting by tribal members, who tend to back Democrats. A suit in Alaska, for example, claimed the state violated federal rules by failing to translate voting materials for tribal voters.
-By mid-2016, federal courts had ruled on four voter ID cases in which restrictions had been challenged in four states: Ohio, Texas, North Carolina and Wisconsin.[5] While the Texas law was not overturned, the state was advised it needed to have alternative processes in place that were not discriminatory before the November 2016 election. A North Carolina law was overturned as "its provisions deliberately ‘target African-Americans’… in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls.
-The Texas law was not overturned, but the state was advised it needed to have alternative processes in place that were not discriminatory
-Republican-dominated states have worked to pass laws for voter IDs, ostensibly to prevent “voter fraud”, which studies have shown is “vanishingly rare.”[6] Many of the provisions of such laws have been found to disadvantage minorities, poor and elderly, many of whom have tended in recent years to vote Democratic
-The Texas law recognized government-issued photo identification and weapons permits but not college IDs, resulting in criticism that the law was unfavorable to young voters, who trend liberal
-He noted that required alternative voter IDs were available only through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs have limited hours: in nine counties they are open only one day per week, and in 13 counties they are open only two days per week. The court ruled that the Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to provide IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania’s “free ID”
-Although most Americans possess a government-issued photo ID, those without ID may have trouble acquiring the proper credentials, lowering turnout
I’m not sure what you think that wiki article proves, but I don’t, to me, it shows that voter ID is mostly put in place by republican parties and most people that can’t vote due to Voter ID are democrats
Perhaps you read it differently than I did. But (while I don’t know much about how law works), I’m not sure I understand why legislature has to rework the law to make it fair when states are making these calls on their own, or are you just saying that legislature needs to say ‘no voter IDs’ and be done with it.
Registering your kids in a public school is, actually. But it’s not a good example of something that requires ID. A school can’t even refuse admission to a child who is forbidden by federal law from being present in the country, so I don’t think it would get away with refusing admission to a child whose parents don’t have state-issued photo ID. This is one of those things where people confuse a request with a demand.
Just glancing at my kid’s school registration requirements, they require a birth certificate, immunization report and utility bill. But since going to school isn’t voluntary (like voting) but required, I’m guessing there’s a way to work around that, one way or another. There’s probably a procedure in place. If for no other reason, for people that just moved into the area recently. Looks like Open Enrollment may be one way around it. I’ve also known of several people who just sign their kids up as being a resident in a school district with a relative that has the same last name as the kid. No one bats and eye (yes, not allowed, but it works and it has nothing to do with voting).
But, think about it, school is required for kids under 18 (in general), if I move to a new district on August (or in the middle of the year), I’m not gong to have a utility bill or even a ID that reflects that. My child is still required to go to school, but I’m not required to vote. The school will figure something out, states with Voter ID will tell me to pound sand.
I have read the arguments in this thread. Good points have been raised. It’s made aware that safeguards need to be in place. I didn’t know student ID cards weren’t accepted. That needs fixing.
There are a lot of organizations out there from both parties working hard to get people voting. Providing all types of services. There’s usually a 2 year period between election cycles. Plenty of time to help potential voters get ID.
Public records are being rapidly digitalized. Making it much easier for authorized clerks to pull up birth and other records to confirm identity, state residency, and that no felony record exists.
I understand discriminatory voting restrictions need to be challenged and struck down. I do think ID requirements can be done in a fair and just way.
Then you really aren’t listening. These laws are not written for the purpose of preventing fraud – there basically isn’t any. These laws are not written for the purpose of being fair and just – quite the opposite.
These laws are designed–entirely, and for no other reason whatsoever–than to make sure that people who will vote against the people passing them are unable to.
Until that monumental elephant in the room is cleared up, the two sides will continue to talk past each other. At least one side is doing so honestly.
No, it’s impossible. The “harm” they are supposedly supposed to stop is so rare that it’s impossible to create a law that would do less harm than good by simple errors, even if no malice is assumed.
More eligible voters would* inevitably* be blocked from voting via computer/clerical errors and such than fraudulent voters stopped, simply because the number of fraudulent voters is so negligible. Even a fraction of a percent of errors would do more harm than good.
But not many of them have the ability to issue voter IDs. In fact, almost none of them do.
But they don’t need to be done. In order for voter ID requirements to make sense, they have to be done in such a way that they prevent less legitimate votes than fraudulent votes. But there are so few fraudulent votes that voter ID laws would prevent that it becomes an exercise in insanity. I mean, just for context, absentee ballots face far more fraud per 1000 votes than in-person ballots, but I have yet to see anyone make any kind of demand to, say, require them notarized. Why do you think that is?
Because the same claim of legislative disenfranchisement of blacks is sometimes made there. The rules against more affordable guns (Saturday Night Specials) were only passed to deny self-protection to poor urban blacks - or such was the claim. I thought that was pretty clear from the combination of the last two posts I made.
The last line/part I will still await some specific examples or some better proof.
As for the other part - fraud is hard for me to speak to. I have had the temptation but I never availed myself of the opportunity. I had a couple cousins back in Chicago during the Glory Years but that’s pretty much ancient history.
But illegals are another thing; them I know. I’ve worked with them and at least once or twice I’ve worked for them. Heck, some of my own ancestors seem to have skipped the normal routes into this country and a couple current cousins are around that I’m not real sure of. Got a few convicted felons as well. When it comes to immigration and probation I follow a strict “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy so I can’t point at noses but I have no doubts. Don’t get me wrong, I think most of them are doing better for our nation than a lot of the people born here. I’m the opposite of Donald Trump - I think we need more immigration even when its the illegal kind. But categorically I don’t want them voting and I know that some are. Going so far as to cross state lines to make it happen when they can/must. And if you think they are always voting Democrat you would be surprised; especially on the local level.
Voting isn’t the most important thing/“right” in my life; more like second with third being a fair piece back of the pack. But I do value it highly enough to want it limited to actual citizens of our country. Somehow I just cannot see how that is unreasonable or unfair.
This one I know having been a resident of PA for most of my life. Of the nine counties without a DLC and the 21 with limited days/hours all but five are pretty steadfast Republican and those five at least lean heavily towards the Republicans. Also several counties border on higher population counties/centers that have located DLCs near their borders giving fair access to their neighbors. Now not to denigrate the rural poor; Lord knows Fayette County makes a lot of Appalachia look comfortable. But since we Democrats own every major city and damn near every population center in the state clearly the people this law looked to disenfranchise were the Republicans! 
And all kidding aside I really isn’t as bad as the judge made it seem. In a couple of the most rural secluded areas I know of, the DLC isn’t much harder to get to than the local polling place. And many of our state representatives and elected officials actually run drives and transport people to get the IDs. Judy Schwank, one of our top leaders for the Democrats in this state, has it down to a fine art. Whether its getting out the vote, registering voters, or getting them IDs — Democrats rule!
Per a cop who was explaining this to a couple getting a passport for their newborn, the basic type will be the same, but they do change enough that the fingerprint by itself doesn’t work as an identification tool after more than a few months (a couple years at the latest). Footprints change more slowly but change as well. Part of it is simply scaling up, but as that scaling up doesn’t happen equally in every point and dimension, there is also some changes to the basic shape.
There’s a whole thread on this topic if you want to educate yourself 
… but first: A Question:
If it were really true that all who want to vote have no problem getting valid picture ID, then why do you think there is so much opposition to these laws? Do you think the Democrats depend on a lot of cheating which would go away if duplicate votes and voting by illegal aliens were eliminated? Democratic politicians are opposed to these laws because they depend on such illegal votes; is that what you think?
Please don’t answer that opponents’ motives are irrelevant to your comment: to make sense of the world we need to explain the parts that don’t seem to make sense.
In practice there would be very wide-spread support for voter ID if the programs were instituted fairly. Instead, the programs are designed deliberately to impede voters likely to vote against the incumbent party. The North Carolina law was struck down NOT primarily because of anything in the letter of that law, but because of external evidence that the law was designed deliberately to impede legal voting by a specific ethnic group. (Do you think the Federal Appeals Court misread the evidence? Should they have hired you as detective?)
Cite that legal state photo ID has ever been disallowed?
One possibility: Because illegal immigrants can register to vote without proving citizenship but it is extremely difficult to get photo ID showing legal residence in REAL ID states.
Ah, yes, the mythical illegal-immigrant vote threat. Article of Faith, as I understand it.
Meanwhile let me join others in pointing out that in the specific North Carolina case the court found evidence that that law was passed with the deliberate intention of voter suppression among black and Democrat-leaning communities.
How do you want to define ‘legal state photo ID’? You’d think if a state university issued a photo ID it would be a ‘legal state photo ID’
In Texas photo id’s issued by state universities could not be used for voting purposes.
Wisconsin student ID’s issued by state universities were disallowed at the polls for not listing expiration dates.
Same goes for Pennsylvania, a photo ID’s without expiration dates are disallowed, that included a huge percentage of ID’s issued by state universities.
So not only do people have to come up with a state issued photo ID they need to make sure that such an ID also meets other requirements. So there are in fact many cases where having a ‘legal state issued photo ID’ wouldn’t meet voter ID requirements.
I’m borrowing this point too. 
Ace, voter fraud is at present a non-problem and spending millions of $ to ‘fix’ such a non-problem is worse than a waste, because the ‘fix’ actually harms voters. And that’s what happens if you ascribe noble motives to the people passing the laws. Historically, it’s been shown that the motives of such folks have not been so noble.
Now do you capisce?
Of course I’m opposed to voter ID laws. Voters are supposed to choose the politicians, not the other way around. There is no doubt of any rational person that the purpose of these laws is to suppress minority voting. In some states, the Republican Secretary of State takes it upon himself to throw as many barriers as possible between the voter and the booth. In Ohio, the SoS threw out registration cards for Democratic voters if they were printed on the wrong weight of paper. The distribution of voting machines is rigged so that the long lines are always in the inner cities. In Michigan, the use of straight party voting was outlawed (though overturned in court). This is because they know that minority voters show up more in presidential years and are more likely to vote straight party, in part because they’re disproportionately more likely to have spent a long time in line and want to speed things up. Voter rolls are periodically purged in some jurisdictions because the targets of these purges are in Democratic districts. Student IDs are disqualified because some areas don’t want the student vote to result in more Democratic office holders. Every single law, every bureaucratic decision has but one purpose- to restrict voting of those who might vote Democratic.
I can see the theoretical appeal of a voter ID law. The constitution says five different times that the right to vote shall not be abridged. If someone thinks that voter fraud is a serious problem that a photo ID would solve, they need to propose this to get my support.
I think there is significantly more potential for fraud in the absentee ballot and online voting options. If someone steps into a booth, it doesn’t matter what their spouse told them about voting. With voting away from a polling station, how do we know that the husband isn’t making the wife vote his way. How do we know that the caregiver isn’t filling out the absentee ballot that was for the elderly patient?
No because it is not issued by the state available to all legal residents.
It does not show legal residency.
It does not have to be surrendered if you have moved to another state.
It does not require the same documentation as a state-issued ID.
The implication in the original posts (at least to me) was that organizations would work with people to get the proper ID just to have the state declare it invalid. My point to Der Trihs was that has there ever been a case of a state making the official state identification card (like you get from the DMV) not valid for voting?