Please refer to the Supreme Court ruling.....
Again, I'm not arguing about constitutuionality.
Further, I will accept the democratically elected state legislatures for each state on whether they want those laws or not (assuming their laws pass the constitutional test, which some do and some others do not). The constitution delegates the responsibility (within constitutional limits) to conduct elections and to establish things like voter registration procedures, residency requirements, voter id, etc. So if some states don't want voter id laws, I am OK with that. For the same reason, if Vermont wants to grant the right to vote to felons while still serving their prison term behind bars, that it none of my business because I don't live in Vermont and the US constitution has provided Vermont the right to decide that for themselves.
As a resident (recently and currently) of two states that have voter ID laws, I find them offensive, and as mentioned, the fact that, at least in PA, the leadership of the party that passed them stated that one of the purposes of the law was to influence the outcome of the presidential election makes me think these laws are not designed to protect the integrity of the election, but to disenfrancise voters.
When I was younger, I thought that anything good was constitutional, and anything bad was unconstitutional. I later learned that is incorrect.
Maybe that applies here as well.
I also learned that the rule of law is more important than the whim of public opinion at any given time as to what is good or what is bad.
It is also the case that sometimes people pass laws that are wrong, and it is our duty to disagree with those laws through all legal means and attempt to change them, (I for one will not vote for anyone who supports voter ID), or if that does not work, sometimes through breaking the law.
I am not personally interested in trying persuade those who disagree with voter id laws or to debate in this forum whether they are in the best interest of society. Obviously I believe that they are, and you don't.
I am not trying to persaude you, my experience with you on this board indicates you don't change your mind about anything (btw that is not a compliment.) I am curious as to why you think what you do, and so I'm asking for reasons. You don't give them. Rather responding again and again with the statement that the, everyone repeat after me, "Voter ID laws are Constitutional." (Nevermind that what is and is not constitutuional changes without the constitution changing, so any statement of that sort should be followed by "at this time".)
So if you wish to provide an arguement for why it is better for 1000 people to not get to vote, in order to prevent one false vote, go ahead. If not, you have not given me a reason why these laws are a good idea, and so please stop saying they are, at least here.
In case I didn't make it clear enough. Don't just tell me "such laws are constitutional, and states are free to pass any constitutional law they want." That does not constitute a reason to pass such a law. (For instance, states could ban corn.)