We pretty much have those already. The long-term issue is that it's seen as a "states rights" issue and both the more extreme left and right wing political play

We pretty much have those already. The long-term issue is that it's seen as a "states rights" issue and both the more extreme left and right wing political players are against ID for different reasons. With specific relevance to voting, what happens to the exceptions? 1% of the US population is 3.5M people. Birth certificate provenance and lack of procedure at birth is only one source of exception. Other examples: - elderly people who lose access to records - children whose parents fail to secure documents. - non-custodial parents who refuse to provide documents to their children - women whose names change from marriage/divorce - native americans whose tribal papers - minors who cannot get required identity documents because their social security card is lost and onerous to replace. (requires in-person appearance and takes 9-24 months) Voting is a fundamental right. You can establish with high certainty the identity of a individual using easy to obtain proofs. The number of non-citizens voting illegally is a tiny number. This whole controversy is about suppressing the votes of the poor and infirm, as denying their rights has a clear ROI to one of the political parties.