Or perhaps not.
And just something to keep in mind...the Iowa GOP managed to LOSE the tallies for eight precincts,meaning we'll never know who really won the Republican Iowa caucus, and yet this is the party, the party that apparently cannot count and misplaces irreplaceable data, that insists you show a photo ID to exercise a right in order to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Now, consider this from the same story in the DesMoines Register:
The precinct chair and precinct secretary were both to sign the results verified by witnesses on caucus night. But results for some precincts came in on pieces of paper other than the official forms. Many more had only one signature, or the wrong signature (say, from a county chair). Another 18 documents had no signatures at all.
All were accepted, party officials said.
“Some are technically perfect in every way, and some are in a gray area, but we erred on the side of inclusion”
So let us recap...if its Republican votes we're counting, we err on the side of inclusion, and count the votes that do not comply with the rules, but if its a potential voter with no photo ID, we err on the side of exclusion because even though we have no proof that the voter is ineligible, he MIGHT be ineligible (and those without ID's are more likely to belong to a demographic that tends to support Democrats anyway). Isn't the burden of proof supposed to be on the one making the positive claim?