This story, the latest in a series about the horrors allegedly inflicted upon some by the requirement that photo identification be produced before voting, is supposed to tug at my heart strings and sense of fairness. It doesn't. It seems to me that the opponents have to dig really hard to find even one or two people who remotely qualify as being incovenienced. And then there are the "experts" who claim special knowledge.
This statement by Michael Waldman reads like a flat-out lie:
There are tens of millions of people in this country who don't have this type of identification.Only if you're including children under the age of 18, Michael. I have a news flash for you: They aren't eligible to vote. Otherwise, Michael, you're full of it. Anyway, as has been pointed out, anyone who doesn't have a photo ID can vote by absentee ballot. A minor inconvenience perhaps, but so is getting to the polls on election day.
Some of the opponents of showing identification point out that it wasn't necessary to provide it when registering to vote. Precisely. It used to be almost universally required, but the same people who oppose photo ID for voting campaigned against those laws and won a long time ago.