As I’ve explained, it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t need solving.
Maybe it is a different situation in India, but here the people proposing voter identification laws are doing so in bad faith.
They’re trying to make it harder to vote so elections are less fair, as opposed to making elections more fair by guaranteeing the sanctity of the individuals vote which is the position they’re pretending to be standing on.
To make it harder a significant number of people need to have no ID. Banking require and id [1] and 93.5% of the population is banked. Most of the remainder probably has an ID for Government services that need them such as applying for food stamps, medicare, medicaid, having a job, unemployment support and social security.
In Norway, my home country, it has never been an issue in our 200 years as an independent country for anyone to get an ID to vote. And we used to be mostly dirt poor fishers and farmers that often lived in fairly isolated places.
Generally that 6.5% of unbanked persons tend not to vote for less healthcare and more tax breaks for the rich.
Instituting the voter ID law makes it harder for 6.5% of people that rarely vote for Republicans to vote to prevent 0.000X% of votes cast fraudulently each election.
As I stated the unbanked are likely to be very old or poor so that use government services that require an ID. For instance, they rely on food stamps or Medicaid or social security. A large part of this 6.5% and the cohort you talk about therefor has an ID.
The reason why I think so is that people that are not poor can not lead their lives without a bank account due to the essentials for a non poor life requiring a bank account.
Maybe it is a different situation in India, but here the people proposing voter identification laws are doing so in bad faith.
They’re trying to make it harder to vote so elections are less fair, as opposed to making elections more fair by guaranteeing the sanctity of the individuals vote which is the position they’re pretending to be standing on.