>>"Legitimate" is the very issue. How do we determine legitimacy without identity verification? Shouldn't the voter have any responsibility to prove themselves or should we take everyone's word for it? Why even require registration in the first place?
>>
>>Besides, we put much stronger impediments in the way of other legitimate constutional rights? Hate speech laws & gun restrictions to name just two that have been perfectly "conscionable" to you in the past.
>>
>
>Hate speech in and of itself is protected under First Amendment.

In theory you're correct, in practice you are not. While the courts have repeatedly struck down hate speech rules, they continue to pop up and cause havoc in the lives of those charged. See UC system speech codes.

>Using hate speech to incite actions is not, however.



>And really, do you NEED a fully automatic rifle to hunt ducks with? Really?

None of us NEED more than food, water & shelter. Do you really wish to examine everything on the basis of need?

>So many of your arguments strike me on the level of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about". '

Holy WOW is that the exact opposite of what I'm about. Have you missed that I'm the one against government intrusion? ;)

>Why do I need to prove I am who I say I am? Let them prove I'm not. I'm more than happy to let them know that I do live in the area for regional elections, but I shouldn't have to PROVE that I'm Dorris A. Beaird. Prove I'm not.

You may note that I have not advocated a position on this but rather I've been pointing out that the excuses given for not obtaining an ID are easily overcome. In addition, I'm offering other examples of where the government has required things of its citizens which those against IDs find acceptable.

On the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I obviously agree.