Let me respond to this question with another question – Were there any incidents of voter fraud that could have been prevented with a voter ID law yesterday?

I don’t know the answer to that, but I expect the answer would be “no”. If I am right, I have another question. Why “fix” a problem that does not exist?

The stated objection to voter ID is the idea that it deters citizens from voting. In each case that this objection has been used in court, the court has found no evidence to support the objection. So……..since that is not a viable objection, it is a most reasonable, mimimal protection of voters right to have their vote count and not be cancelled out by ineligible voters.
Since The voters themselves want this procedure, and no adverse affects have ever been noted, the voters will must be honored.

We don’t need anything more stringent/restrictive than what we already have. The system works.

To what end?  Our attorney general made a concerted and expensive effort to show abuses in our voting process.  He found a number of them.   I am not sure of the circumstances of all of the violations, but here are the ones that made the papers:
>Born in Mexico, an elderly lady lives her entire life in Califonia then moves to Iowa, changes address and registers to vote.  She claims she is a citizen, but can not produce documentation.  Photo ID at poll would not have helped.  She is who she says she is.   
>Two felons registered to vote via checking a box when getting driver’s license.  One just checked boxes to finsh quickly, the other thought Culver had restored voting privileges when they completed their sentence.  Photo ID at poll would not have helped.  They were who they said they were.
>Elderly couple in nursing home got an absentee ballot to vote.  Said they mailed the ballot in late, didn’t think it would count, so they went to the polls.
Photo ID at poll would not have helped.

I would suggest there are very few cases of someone voting using another’s identity so as to gain a political advantage.

I think requiring a photo id at the poll is an unnecessary obstacle that would affect some more than others.  If those hampered showed any commonality: race, socio-economic, religious, ideology,…anything, then one could argue the sole purpose was to disenfranchise a group of voters. 

The Texas Case is an aberation, the judges ‘supposed a lot of stuff with no evidence to support their conclusions, The decision is very narrow applies only to Texas and likely can be avoided by simple changes, like varifiing identity thru a vouching mechanism like Iowa uses
http://siouxcityjournal.com/article_621af6ce-949c-5604-a66e-84dda1762a28.html
■A study by the University of Missouri on turnout in Indiana showed that turnout actually increased by about 2 percentage points overall in Indiana in 2006 in the first election after the voter ID law went into effect
■In September 2007, The Heritage Foundation released a study analyzing the 2004 election turnout data for all states. This study found that voter ID laws do not reduce the turnout of voters, including African–Americans and Hispanics.
■A study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln examined data from the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections. At both the aggregate and individual levels, the study found that voter ID laws do not affect turnout, including across racial/ethnic/socioeconomic lines
■A survey by American University of registered voters in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi to see whether registered voters had photo IDs concluded that “showing a photo ID as a requirement of voting does not appear to be a serious problem in any of the states” because “[a]lmost all registered voters have an acceptable form of photo ID.”
2010, a Rasmussen poll of likely voters in the United States showed overwhelming support (82 percent) for requiring photo ID in order to vote in elections.
■A similar study by John Lott in 2006 also found no effect on voter turnout and, in fact, found an indication that reducing voter fraud (through means such as voter ID) may have a positive impact on voter turnout
Actual election results in Georgia and Indiana also confirm that suppositions about voter ID hurting minority turnout are incorrect. Turnout in both states increased more dramatically in 2008 in both the presidential preference primary and the general election in the first presidential elections held after their photo ID laws went into effect than they did in some states without photo ID

So I ask again,,,,,,,,,,,,what are the other objections now that I have proven my point?

Rich Greer:” Heritage Foundation? They have no credibility with me and many other people.”
Did you read the link? It is a compilation of research. All carefully footnoted But then actual factual research has little value to you huh?

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

Gee look at that. The cited Pennsylvania case was not stayed because of undue hardship to the poor and minorities, but because there was not enough time to implement.
Still waiting for something that is wrong with voter ID laws…….still waiting…

the Pennsylvania case, Simpson, who heard frustrated voters testify about the slow, mistake-prone process of obtaining the cards, said he had expected a greater number of identification cards to have been issued by now.

“For this reason, I accept (the) argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed,” the judge said in an 18-page ruling.

Oh I don’t know, seems to me the cited difficulty in making sure that everybody has a state approved voter ID–”voters testify about the slow, mistake-prone process of obtaining the cards”–puts an undue burden not only on voters but also on the state’s DOT, county election officials, and the taxpayers who get to pay for all this foolishness.
I thought conservatives were into saving taxpayer money, not wasting taxpayer money on imposing unnecessary regulations and restrictions.
You want omebody to explain what is wrong with voter ID requirements. I want you to explain why we need them

Williamson,
1) What does killing babies have to do with voter ID laws
2) There was no referendum in any state on voter ID. The people didn’t vote to enact these things, state legislatures did
3) It is not a function of government to waste my tax money on things that are stupid and unnecessary. I thought Republicans were the ones who were supposed to be fiscally conservative
4) I still want you to explain why we need them