Ok, maybe I should rephrase, show me significant voter fraud in the 20 years.
I have no obligation to show anything, and even a single instance of fraud is sufficient reason to protect the integrity of the voting system by requiring a photo id.
Ok, you made two statements here. They are both false. You are claiming a law is in the public interest. It is your obligation to show that it is. I am saying it is not. I have stated the costs, you have not shown any tangible benefit.
You are wrong that the "integrity of the voting system" is worth a single voter fraud. If your "integrity of the voting system" prevents 1000 people from voting because, let's say, they get mugged on the way to the voting center and have their ID's stolen, but prevents one person who should not be able to vote from voting. That is a net loss of "integrity" so if that were the case, a voter ID law would actually hurt the "integrity of the voting system."
In posts above, I have heard people claim that someone who is poor and holds down 3 jobs doesn't have time to get a photo id once every 5 or 10 years. I wonder how people get those jobs, because one must have a government issued photo id (along with other doc) on the first day at work to prove that one is either a citizen, or a non-citizen who has a valid work visa to work in the US.
Easy, the jobs are under the table, or their employers are lax.
The US Supreme Court decides whether the voter id laws are constitutional or not. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), the US Supreme Court held by a vote of 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photo IDs did not violate the Constitution of the United States. Certain other voter id laws in other states have been struck down by the US Supreme Court or lower courts. So as long it meets certain criteria, the basic concept of a voter id law is permissible.
You seem to be missing the point. "Constitutional" doesn't mean "is in the benefit of society." It would be constitutional to ban the sale of corn across state lines. It would be a terrible idea. I am not disagreeing with the constitutionality of that voter ID laws, I am just arguing that they are not to the benefit of society.
Again, if you are asserting that they are constitutional, but not to the benefit of society, that is one thing, and I wouldn't have an objection to that. If you are asserting that they are to the benefit of society, then you are making a claim, which requires evidence. I don't see you providing any, except complaining about an election 50 years ago.