They are easy to get if you have all documentation in order to obtain one. I work in a field with adult with developmental disabilities and a lot of those folks come to us from state hospitals and often times, are missing vital documentation. Such as, original, certified copies of birth certificates. Problem is, you file to the state they were born in and they then require two forms of ID in order to even get a certified copy of a birth certificate. The problem then lies in the fact that they cannot obtain a KS ID card without a certified copy of a birth certificate. One lends to the other, and there you sit. Many of these people live in group homes and have representative payees, so all their expenses are paid by them. So, there are no bills or other forms of ID to send to the state to get an official ID.
Many of these people have no concerns with voting, but there are some that are extremely high functioning that have an interest and desire to vote. They cannot because of the lack of historical information about them that seems to go missing when they are transferred from hospital, institution, etc...
I remember well your occupation, TGND, and am well familiar with it. It is noble work, as my family have been grateful for services provided much like yours, and multiple members of my family have been long-time workers in the field. Again, thank you for your service, however stressful and perhaps ill to your health it can be (my Grandmother knows her limitations, but persists nevertheless).
I agree, IDs are troublesome to come by without the documentation necessary, or as our brothers and sisters on the physical disability categories could attest, difficult to make travel. It is why I personally think the Voter ID term that gave justification to the more restrictive laws itself is a misnomer, as there are additional means to provide identification without providing the State-issued card. It isn't as if without the State-ID cards everything is chaotic. On the contrary, we in North Dakota not only have no voter registration (the only such state in the Union), but we also allow numerous forms of identification to prove eligibility to vote. No voter scandals here. Instead, those with disabilities, often perhaps unsure where they need to vote, especially in times of redistricting (as was the case this Summer), were not denied access if they were in the wrong voting station-they could vote as any other. Should they not have the documentation necessary (including utility bill or change of address verification letter from the post office), they could follow the following advise: "If an individual offering to vote does not have or refuses to show an appropriate form of identification, the individual may be allowed to vote without being challenged if a pollworker is able to vouch for the voter's identity and address. Otherwise, the individual may vote as a challenged voter by executing an affidavit that the challenged individual is a legally qualified elector of the precinct." It certainly isn't a sure-fire way of ensuring it around here, but we have improved.
Though what is interesting to me is, like all other matters relating to disability, information is always power. As you say, guardians or payees represent middle-men that could withhold, forget, or be ignorant of what needs to be done in order to ensure civic participation. In addition to this, there is still the assumption that those with guardianship are too incompetent to move forward, or that they will be scammed, so deny them access. Certainly matters have improved since the 19th century where guardians held
that much more power over those with, for instance intellectual disability, but a significant problem remains that many are still denied based on perceptions of cognitive fitness, or on basis of being appointed guardianship.
