There is nobody out there (citizen wise) without ID. Know anyone yourself? Anybody?
At the moment? No. In the past? Yes. Sure, there's the provisional ballot/courthouse option, but for somebody who doesn't make so much money taking time of to A) vote, B) go to the courthouse, and C) go get ID for next time actually starts to become a bit of a burden. And often the reason people find themselves without ID is because of some other paperwork SNAFU that's preventing them from getting it, or making it difficult enough that it requires multiple trips (again, each trip representing at least a time commitment and probably lost wages as well).
Considering we're talking about the exercise of a Constitutional right, even so small an impediment has to be given quite a bit of weight.
And if there are, the population is so miniscule that the interests of the state in ensuring fair elections far outweighs the purported dienfranchisement.
Far outweighs? Out of curiosity, how many cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted in Indiana in, say, the last decade? I know this is almost certainly a non-zero number, but I'm curious what the actual count is. Because again, assuming that count is small I'm not so sure that the interest of the state
far outweighs the impediment that this presents, even if only to a small minority. Again, Constitutional right and all.
EDIT: Not that I'm arguing all that strongly against this law. I just think that we may want to consider the implication of passing such a restriction on a Constitutional right to address a
possible problem or a
potential problem...considering where we are. Sure, in this case the infringement is small...but the interest it's addressing is also pretty underwhelming. Scale the level of infringement to the level of interest in, say, protecting the public from guns...well, suddenly you can justify even stricter regulations than we have now. Just a thought, probably not worth the penny.