we require an ID to get into a bar, to fly, to get employed, to open any sort of account, to do anything at the dmv or at basically any other govt office. that doesn't fall under the definition of something being "restrictive" to me.
Gotta socially engineer it. Make it a point of pride. Then require it. If we can require voter ID's, why not ink?
go head and do it. if someone has their finger inked are we going to have the 80 year old lady at the voting booth send them away? that'd be funny
You still have to sign in these days. You flag the name. Hell, we both know if we computerized this more pedestrian voter fraud would get difficult to go undetected. It'd only be hi tech fraud that would be concerning. I don't see why we can't have computerized voting that prints out a receipt of your vote for you to verify, then put into a paper ballot, followed by an exit poll. If there is any question concerning the computerized voting numbers, check the paper ballot.
None of those things are rights or they have IDs serve a specific purpose in order to resolve some kind of tangible issue.
Also a response to a specific problem. Like I said, I don't have a problem with IDs to vote for an actual problem, but not as a solution in search of a problem.
The thing we all should agree on is that everyone that is eligible to vote and wants to do so, should be able to vote with as little encumbrance as possible. Additionally, those that are not eligible to vote should not be able to vote. Right?
Absolutely. "As little encumbrance as possible" is where most of the disagreement happens. Especially if we are going to attempt the prevent as much fraud from happening as we can.