Two options, neither necessarily to the exclusion of the other:
If you do not have or cannot afford (scoff) a state-issued picture ID....
1: Register to vote, get your picture taken. That picture goes into a database, similar to that of the BMV, if not the same one. When you show up to vote w/ your state issued photo ID. the poll workers go to the database, check you against the picture in the database, and then give you a ballot. If there is any question among the poll workers, you get a provisional ballot to be verified later.
2: Register to vote, get your thumbprint scanned. When you show up to vote w/o your state-issued picture ID,. you run your thumb over the scanner and given a green/red light to vote. A red light might be an error, so you cast a provisional ballot to be verified later.
This eliminates any cost to or burden on a low-income voter and therefore eliminates any argument regarding discrimination against same for political purposes.
What say ye?
Why are you so interested in voter suppression? Your stance on guns is one of no compromise on anything. Yet you seem comfortable denying the right to vote to others. Explain this dichotomy.
Vote early, vote often, that's your philosophy.
Yes, we do want to restrict the vote to eligible voters voting once as themselves. I'm not seeing the issue.
As there is little evidence of wide spread voter fraud, it seems that this move to suppress the vote is an answer in search of a problem.
Ask yourself a few questions: which political ideology is seeking to suppress the vote by requiring IDs?
Which voters would be most impacted by an ID requirement?
Now, aren't those same voters more likely to vote for the political ideology NOT seeking to suppress their votes?
It amounts to a political move by one ideology to suppress the voters from an opposite ideology. Politics turned against the constituency. But it makes sense to Conservatives. Why? Conservatives always take the obtuse view of a problem rather than seeing the obvious.