It’s not the ‘presenting’ but the requirement to obtain an ID after a voter has already proven he’s eligible to vote when he registered.
A voter presents a birth certificate or other suitable document when he registers to vote. As long as he votes every two years (or whatever the required frequency for his jurisdiction) his signature alone next to his name on the voter registration log is sufficient, even if itÂ’s been 20 years since he last registered.
To require a voter to ‘prove’ at every election he’s eligible to vote when he already documented his eligibility at registration manifests an undue burden to the right to vote; it’s also likely a due process violation, to presume a voter is guilty and make him ‘prove’ he’s not attempting to commit fraud.
The same is true with regard to firearm licensing and registration requirements.
There’s nothing burdensome about a background check, but requiring a gun owner to have a license simply to own any type of firearm, or be required to register that firearm with the state, manifests an undue burden, if he’s otherwise not in the NICS database. It’s likely a due process violation as well, to presume all gun owners are ‘guilty.’
The state cannot presume that because one wishes to own a gun he might commit a crime, and compel the potential gun owner to obtain a license first. Just as the state cannot presume that a given voter might commit fraud, and compel the voter to prove whom he is at every election.
Whether exercising the right to vote or the right to own a firearm, the state may not restrict or preempt any right absent evidence the restricting measure is warranted.
There is no evidence licensing requirements will stop gun violence (because criminals don’t worry about licenses), and there’s no evidence requiring photo ID will prevent voter ‘fraud.’
Circular logic gets you nowhere.
The bottom line for voters to show ID is to preserve the integrity of the process.
ANYONE can obtain an official state ID free of charge. ANYONE...
We are required to present ID for far less crucial issues.
For example, one must present ID to cash a check. To be permitted to board a commercial aircraft. To rent a car. To pay one's taxes in person, one must prove their identity. To receive state or federal assistance, one must identify themselves.
This voter ID catfight the left has started is all about political correctness.
It’s a consistent application of a fundamental Constitution doctrine: in order to restrict or preempt a right, the state must have substantial evidence in support of that restriction – whether restricting the right to vote or the right to own a gun.
The integrity of the vote is maintained through the registration process; and if the state believes a particular voter is attempting to commit fraud and has evidence to that effect, then it can begin an investigation accordingly. But it cannot presume every voter might commit fraud, just as it cannot presume a potential gun owner will commit a gun crime, and subject each voter to an undue burden to the exercising of a fundamental right.
For example, one must present ID to cash a check. To be permitted to board a commercial aircraft. To rent a car. To pay one's taxes in person, one must prove their identity. To receive state or federal assistance, one must identify themselves.
This voter ID catfight the left has started is all about political correctness.
Unlike voting or possessing a firearm, one does not have a Constitutional right to cash a check, fly a commercial flight, or apply for or receive state or Federal assistance.
For the partisan right the advocacy of voter ID is predicated solely on the delusion that republicans lose elections as a consequent of ‘fraud,’ when in fact no evidence of ‘fraud’ exists to the extent that the outcome of any election was changed. For conservatives, for the most part, voters unable to secure a photo ID are perceived as ‘democratic’ voters, and their inability to secure such documentation a partisan advantage.
If conservatives are going to be consistent with regard to their argument that registration and licensing of firearms are un-Constitutional where the state lacks justification to do so, then they must also understand that voting rights canÂ’t be so restricted for the same reason, or same-sex couplesÂ’ access to marriage law, or a womanÂ’s right to decide to have a child or not.
... lovely... just too damned funny! 
