You're right that I'm taking it a step farther than Rowe did. The thing is, those who oppose this really are putting forward a strawman, at least relative to w

You're right that I'm taking it a step farther than Rowe did. The thing is, those who oppose this really are putting forward a strawman, at least relative to what SCOTUS has told us is in-bounds. They've found that a law requiring ID for in-person voting was OK, because it also provided for A) A means to obtain IDs for free; or B) People without ID could still vote by (as I recall) going to city hall and showing other identifying documents With these conditions, I think it clearly changes from a question of excluding people because of money, to one more like I said, where it's just testing whether people are willing to get off their butts and invest a little bit of effort.