Jake highlights facts.. YOU (Or me) don't get to say how you choose to live in this country. So... the little old lady has not needed a photo ID to live her life in this country for 70 plus years.. You don't get to judge that reality and deny them a constitutional right. ...

Matt's principled street beggar gets to choose their existence... and you also don't get to judge that as up or down and deny them constitutional rights either.

We are talking about VOTING.... not functioning in American society according to a standard that YOU or your political party wants to impose.

So... we eventually got the constitutional right to vote mostly sorted out. Blacks, can now vote... Woman can now vote.... you don't have to own property to vote..

All constitutional rights are balancing acts and the specific details get decided by the Supremes.

On the one hand, you have a legitimate concern that all votes are cast according to the constitution.... and on the other hand.... what is an undue burden on individuals voting to ensure that result.

as Jake points out... some populations don't have photo Id. I point out that PROOF of voter ID voting fraud is trivial and almost non existent. Moreover, the difference a photo ID would make on the trivial numbers documented are vanishingly small and the impact of fraud of this type hardly decisive in normal political election. (Counting and arithmetic errors in one county swamp the literally handful of documented voter fraud cases nationwide)

So... What is your argument that PHOTO ID voting requirements is a BALANCED response to the legitimate concern that elections are representative, fair and accurate. Don't forget our constitution takes into account the rights of the individual and stops majorities from stomping on individuals. ... So... balance away...