Getting a driver license the first time requires hours of sitting at the DMV. When I first moved to Texas, I had to do it twice in fact.

It sounds like your criticism is of government (or at least DMV) complexity/ineffectiveness in general, not the ID laws specifically.

Voting is one of the few government services that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I can stomach complexities and ineffectiveness when it comes to something like acquiring a drivers license. I can't stomach anything that puts unnecessary obstacles between a US citizen and the ability to quickly and easily vote. If you want to require voter ID to vote, that is fine by me as long as you also take on the responsibility of ensuring every citizen has an ID.

I suspect you should check your sources.

This was my first result searching for "us constitution voting" https://www.votefortheconstitution.com/voting---what-does-th...

I'm not sure your point here. The Amendments are generally included when someone refers to the Constitution. Several of the Amendments are directly related to protecting the right to vote.

I like that logic. It works great for the 2nd amendment. You'll agree that an ID requirement for firearms is unacceptable, yes?

Constitutional protections for voting are far more limited.

This thread is already on the verge of being too political for HN. I'm not going to take the bait and get into a debate about something that is not even tangentially related to the topic of the link.

> Voting is one of the few government services that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

Voting is not defined as a "government service" and voting itself is barely defined at all in the Constitution or any Amendment. The Amendments assert a right to vote but the means, methods, and even timing are left heavily up to the discretion of the Legislative branches (Congress or State).

Therefore, the vast majority of existing election law can be changed as easily as legislators pass any other law versus the complexity+effort+time of a Constitutional Amendment.

I used the term "service" there to distinguish it from the more passive rights that we have. For example, freedom of speech is something that restricts government power while voting is something that the government organizes and must allow us to participate in. The former puts a passive restriction on the government. The latter requires action by the government.

Beyond that, I'm still not sure your point. We aren't debating the means, methods, or timing of voting. We are debating who has the right to vote. As far as the Constitution is concerned, that seems to be everyone but felons.

> We aren't debating the means, methods, or timing of voting. We are debating who has the right to vote.

Providing ID or not is quite literally the means and methods aka the process to vote. I haven't referenced "who" in any way, shape, or form.

> As far as the Constitution is concerned, that seems to be everyone but felons.

Again, check your sources. That's not in the US Constitution and is left up to the States. Here's the full text so you can check yourself: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full...

>Providing ID or not is quite literally the means and methods aka the process to vote. I haven't referenced "who" in any way, shape, or form.

No, when you require ID anyone without ID is prevented from voting and therefore you are dictating who can vote and not the means or method of voting. This is no different than a poll tax which is also unconstitutional.

>Again, check your sources. That's not in the US Constitution and is left up to the State

My source is the 14th Amendment, Section 2. It specifically calls out a lack of voter protections for people who had any "participation in rebellion, or other crime". A lack of protections does not mean felons don't have the right to vote. It simply means it isn't federally guaranteed.