That statistic came from the Brennan Center for Justice, which has a history of bias-driven research[1]. They have also taken massive donations from George Soros. I question the legitimacy of their "research."

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Brennan_Center_for_Justice#Bias

edit: Why am I being downvoted for doing research on citations? It's kind of important to be critical of these kind of things.

Ok, how about another study. 100k in Wisconsin alone.

http://www4.uwm.edu/eti/barriers/DriversLicense.pdf

That research is incomplete. Look at the bottom of page 3:

"A portion of the population without a drivers license – whether valid or not – will have a photo ID, but without an analysis by race and location, it is not possible to estimate that population. "

The question here isn't whether or not they have valid drivers license, it's whether or not they have a valid photo ID good enough to vote with.

Thank you for providing that link, though. It's less biased than the others so far.

It’d be one thing if the politicians pushing voter ID were also pushing hard on making it easy, but when you look at Alabama cutting off access to IDs st the same time they’re requiring them, it’s hard not to draw obvious conclusions about intent.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/alabama-drivers-licen...

I agree completely. IMO, voter ID laws should only be legal if photo IDs are free. If a state simultaneously restricts access to IDs while requiring them, then that's voter suppression.

I’d argue free isn’t enough. Free and accessible is necessary, but given how hard it is to obtain a birth certificate e.g. there’s more to the problem.

Honestly where does this George Soros Boogeyman spring from? His philanthropy seems way less insidious and society undermining than the Kochs, Mercer, DeVos.

I guess it depends on where you sit...