This applies in only 12 states and DC who, for some obscene reason saw fit to provide identification to people who were not even citizens. Beyond the problem this error created, whether an ID is effective was not the ruling of the court. My understanding is that the court ruled that the process of having to secure an ID, either effective or not, was discriminatory. My point is that if this is in fact discriminatory, then any program that requires effort and visiting a public location is also discriminatory. Regarding the voter registration card, as you mention it has a serious problem with being used as a valid ID. What would stop someone from asking around in church or an elderly home or some members of one’s family who did not intend to vote at all and using them on their behalf? Nothing would prevent this at all and hopefully we can agree this would be wrong. Finally, you are very wrong on one point. “All that matters is you are who you say you are…” is absolutely wrong. You absolutely and positively Must be a citizen to vote for an American election and you are entitled to ONLY 1 vote. That is all that matters. Beyond that, I frankly don’t care if a voter is who they say they are or not. To accomplish this an ID of some sort makes sense. Not simply showing up with as many registration cards as you can make, borrow, etc. This of course is contentious for a party who relies on tying as many citizens to dependency on the Government, in one form or another, as possible.