But also...not at all relevant to the point I'm making, which is that a mandatory ID is not against the Constitution (that I know of), and that we -could- creat

But also...not at all relevant to the point I'm making, which is that a mandatory ID is not against the Constitution (that I know of), and that we -could- create a mandatory national ID, but there's no political will for it. That's it. I provided an example of that, by pointing out where even the party whose stated goal is to validate a person's identity for voting (i.e., where a mandatory national ID would help with one of their stated goals; certainly, it would remove the objections the other party has) still isn't pushing for a mandatory national ID. You commenting how multiple types of non-mandatory IDs are included in the bills that that party supports...isn't gainsaying anything I said, nor the point I was making. I'm not sure why you bothered.