It can be, depending upon how it is managed. When you register to vote you usually have to supply all that info or supply id that required that info.
Consider, many people don't drive so they don't have a drivers license. Older people also who no longer drive may not have current id. Younger people straight out of school may not have a drivers ID or State ID, just a student ID. You would think ID would be required to do most things, but not all people have bank accounts. I speak with people every day who do not have cell phones, internet or even credit cards. They rely on prepaid cards. People in rural areas often have to go long distances to get ID.
When the GOP didn't want college kids to vote because they thought they would vote dem, they changed laws in some states where school ID could no longer be used for id but other things like gun licenses could. Often the laws are written in such a way as to impact the people they don't want voting the most.
Its not just the ID, its the other things that go along with it. In 2016 when NC GOP wanted to target Black voters they changed the laws to impact them the most. From:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/161468.p.pdf
Before enacting that law, the legislature requested d
ata on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data,
the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used. Moreover, as the district court found, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, the legislature requested and received racial data as to usage of the practices changed by the proposed
law.
This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Id. The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.
The district court found that, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, legislators also requested data as to the racial breakdown of early voting usage.
The racial data provided to the legislators revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting in both 2008 and 2012.
(trial evidence showing that 60.36% and 64.01% of African Americans voted early in 2008 and 2012, respectively, compared to 44.47% and 49.39% of whites)
In particular, African Americans disproportionately used the first seven days of early voting.
After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days.
As a result, SL 2013-381 also eliminated one of two “souls-to-the-polls” Sundays in which African American churches provided transportation to voters.
The district court found that legislators similarly requested data as to the racial makeup of same-day registrants. The legislature’s racial data demonstrated that, as the district court found, “it is indisputable that African American voters disproportionately used [same-day registration] when it was available.” The district court further found that African American registration applications constituted a disproportionate percentage of the incomplete registration queue. Id. at *65. And the court found that African Americans “are more likely to move between counties,” and thus “are more likely to need to re-register.”
Legislators additionally requested a racial breakdown of provisional voting, including out-of-precinct voting. The district court found that the racial data revealed that African Americans disproportionately voted provisionally. In fact, the General Assembly that had originally enacted the out-of-precinct voting legislation had specifically found that “of those registered voters who happened to vote provisional ballots outside their resident precincts” in 2004, “a disproportionately high percentage were African American.”
African Americans also disproportionately used preregistration. Preregistration permitted 16- and 17-year-olds, when obtaining driver’s licenses or attending mandatory high school registration drives, to identify themselves and indicate their intent to vote. This allowed County Boards of Elections to verify eligibility and automatically register eligible citizens once they reached eighteen. Although preregistration increased
turnout among young adult voters, SL 2013-381 eliminated it.
The district court found that not only did SL 2013-381 eliminate or restrict these voting mechanisms used disproportionately by African Americans, and require IDs that African Americans disproportionately lacked, but also that African Americans were more likely to “experience socioeconomic factors that may hinder their political participation.” This is so, the district court explained, because in North Carolina, African Americans are “disproportionately likely to move, be poor, less educated, have less access to transportation, and experience poor health.”
www.yahoo.com
