Busy week for the SCOTUS.

[bu villain]

You BELIEVE, you have nothing to justify that belief, but you just throw that out there.

This belief comes from various sources I have read and/or heard in the past. I stated "believe" because I didn't want to pass it off as fact when I am not 100% sure (only 90%). If you do not believe this to be the case, we can do more research to prove who is correct. I "just threw it out there" because it is not really central to my position which is that we should minimize barriers for voting for everyone.

This has already been addressed. There are plenty of ways to offer a free state ID.

Yes and if every state offered a free ID, I would not use the cost of an ID as an argument against it.

If they cannot leave the house to get an ID, they probably cant get out to vote either. That eventuality has already been covered by use of absentee voting.

Actually there have been pretty big efforts to get these kinds of people to the polls. Volunteers often bring elderly or disabled people to the polls. Having to get volunteers to take them to get an ID and also take them to the polls is just another level of burden to being able to vote for those people. The fact that it is already somewhat difficult for them to vote is not a good reason to add another impediment. Also, what does absentee voting have to do with requiring IDs?

So you believe in enacting better security AFTER fraud affects an election? Why not be proactive and add extra security before it happens?

No, I believe in enacting better security when the effects of that security outweigh the burden of it. For example, if we had our current level of fraud (extremely low), but absolutely everyone had an ID (burden also extremely low), we could require ID tomorrow and I would be ok with it. The only concern I may have at that point is I would like some assurances that how an individual votes is treated properly (could not be used for intimidation purposes).