The problem is primarily that it falsely validates a fascist conspiracy theory which is being weaponized to dismantle western democracy. That's really most of it.

We don't have a free national ID, even state IDs cost money. There should be no money involved in the right to vote.

I have never not had to show my ID to vote. I'm 50 and have voted every time I had an opportunity. Where can you vote without proof that you are who you are and are at the right polling place?

The US has about 3.8 million valid citizens with no official records, and about another 21 million that would need to jump through very difficult hoops in order to obtain their documentation. It's called the Burned Counties phenomenon, because records were kept at the county level, that had a court house burned down. Or flooded, or destroyed by unrest. We like variety in our destruction.

As will come to no surprise, the majority of those affected, are minorities who vote for Democrats. So the laws being proposed are designed around blocking them from voting, not getting them documented to vote.

First thing is that it is up to states to administer elections and make their own rules and laws. Given the record of the current president, many people and states are not very interested in giving up power over that to the federal government, who keeps trying to claim and take control of state-run elections anyway.

In the US, people are not automatically given IDs or driver licenses. They require a fair amount of time, other paperwork, and fees to procure. Therefore having one is automatically more likely for people with more time (retired, better job, etc), money, organized lives and physical ability since you must show up in person.

By organized lives, I mean people of higher economic status are more likely to live in stable situations where they have social security cards, passports and birth certificates easily accessible. If you don't have those documents - perhaps they were lost in a move, never given by parents, never applied for - it costs a fair bit to get them. A replacement SS card is free. A duplicate birth certificate can be $20-30. The average charge for an ID/DL is about $40. A copy of a marriage or divorce certificate is typically $10-40. A replacing naturalization certificate is almost $1,400.

Getting these documents could take weeks and an amount of money that's trivial to higher income people and significant to lower income people. Like voting, if you have a white collar job, it's fairly easy to take time out to do it. If you have an hourly job with little flexibility and/or lack a vehicle, it's much more difficult to go to government offices to obtain this paperwork. Some might ask, why would someone not have at least a driver's license or ID? Perhaps it expired, was lost, they moved and never got the paperwork, or couldn't afford the fees and time. Younger people and non-white people are known to be less likely to have the documents that would be required. It also creates barriers for armed service members.

Another aspect is the bill says women must prove their citizenship with documents that match their original, non-married name. So if you have a birth certificate that says Jane Doe but all your other documents say Jane Smith, since it was changed after marriage, that won't work. The requirements would also make it harder for trans people to register.

Next, there's the changes to registration process. Currently 42 states allow you to register online or by mail. That would be nixed. Voters would have to show up at an office in person to register. Currently signing under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen is considered adequate, along with proof of residency and documents like an ID (which required the aforementioned birth certificate etc to get in the first place). Under the proposed law, a drivers license would not be adequate in 90% of states. In some areas, voters must travel over 200 miles to get to an election office in person.

Another question is why this would be necessary. While Republicans have been claiming that non-citizens voting in federal elections is a major problem, there is no actual evidence of that. In fact, data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says 0.04% of voters might be ineligible, and that's considered likely an overcount. When states have tried similar laws in the past, it ended up disenfranchising far, far more legitimate voters than the number of illegitimate voters thwarted.

So what's the actual effect of this? Mainly, to make it harder for poor people and women to vote, two groups who are more likely to vote for Democrats.

EU countries try really hard to register all births with the proper documents that then lead you to get an ID or passport later on in life. Everybody is used to needing an ID, being able to show it upon request, and using it to vote as well. Most people are just fine with all of that.

The US doesn't follow this logic. For example, a person born earlier the last century in the deep south may not have received a birth certificate. The birth could have just been written into the household bible. So when you require a voter ID and to get that you need a birth certificate, you have eliminated a possible voter. And what if I added this bible practice was done predominantly in African-American communities. There will be other loopholes where people will be required to produce paperwork they can only acquire after a Kafkaesque tour through various administrations. Funny enough a lot of them affecting minority communities first and foremost.

If you want to do a proper voter ID, you need to first convince the people this isn't government overreach (good luck). And then make sure everybody has an equal chance to get this ID, e.g. by issuing missing birth certificates. The laws that generally want to introduce this do not care about equal chances. They tend to target voters who vote for the other side.

Related question: why not put the threshold in the future? Like starting in 2036 you will need an ID to vote, you have 10 years to get one.

The US is run by the constitution. Its the set of rules the country agreed to abide by and in actuallity is the country. It did not exist until it was ratified and pretty much does not when its violated as a matter of policy. When interpreting there is actually a large body of writings from the founding fathers on how the various parts came to be. The philosophy that built the country. Its pretty clear that power originates with the people who are represented in the state and federal government. If further clearly says when something is unsure it is in the realm of the states or the people directly. In particular it says states decide how to run their elections. Due to the fact people can move around and between states the states started requiring registration for elections so they could verify the person does indeed reside in the state and locality where they are eligible to vote in the elections. Coming from the eu do you show an eu id or one from the country? In many ways the states are like countries in the eu. Essentially the us has a much stricter and local process so that only people eligible to vote do so. Even within the state the elections are largely run by the county or in the case of large cities the city. The state essentially just acts as oversite for the localities and collects the vote totals. Its basically so anti american to have the federal level involved as to be treasonous. Its disturbingly part of facist attacks on our checks and balances. Its a massively bad thing.

Well, it would disenfranchise a whole lot of people due to difficult to obtain (expensive, time consuming) on short notice. If it passed today many would not be able to vote in an upcoming election. It would specifically impact a large block of voters who tend to lean left. Oh, and we already use perfectly fine government issued IDs. This is just an extra hoop for poor people and women. In other words, not needed, voter suppression, targeted, and a poll tax.

What "voter ID law?" It would be unconstitutional to legislate that at a federal level and while I don't doubt Republicans would love to try it, I've not heard about that.

As with most laws in America, voting related laws are passed at the state level. There have been probably hundreds of bills like this over the past 20 years so you'd need to be more specific for anyone to address the "law" singular as you put it.