I had to get a second ID a few months ago: It cost $8 and took me all of 10 minutes. To me, there's a fundamental flaw in the system if the ID bar is higher for buying beer than it is for voting.

>>Why is this bad? Aren't ID's cheaply had and necessary to cash checks or buy beer?
>>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24356530/
>
>It's bad because it's a voter suppression technique.
>
>The problem is that for poor people who have jobs and don't drive, getting such an id probably requires a considerable expenditure of time and lost wages.
>
>FWIW, I've had one of those non-drivers licenses at a time when I was medically prohibited from driving. Getting it was a hassle. Yes, it came from the drivers license people. I had to get there during their inadequate hours (IOW, during the work day) and of course, someone had to take me. IIRC, it was not free, In my view, no one should ever have to spend a single penny to be allowed to vote. So unless photo ID will be issue for free, and available at many places at all kinds of time of day, requiring it is a just a way to keep poor people from voting.
>
>It's also a solution to a problem that's generally admitted not to be terribly serious. Everything I've heard says that people showing up at the polls and claiming to be someone they're not (after all, only _registered_ voters can vote) is a minor problem, not a major one.
>
>Tamar