Further deepening the dilemma, Manchin’s national voter ID proposal contains little to no information on what exactly it is. His compromise list simply states: “Require voter ID with allowable alternatives (utility bill, etc.) to prove identity to vote.”

Beginning in 2005, states run by Republicans began to adopt more restrictive forms of identification; these efforts soon accelerated. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder that gutted the Voting Rights Act, the number of states adopting restrictive ID laws, particularly restrictive photo ID laws, increased dramatically.

A restrictive identification law is one that requires photo identification, places strict limitations on the types of identification accepted at the polls and imposes limits on how a voter can still vote without the required photo identification. The most restrictive laws are those that do not provide any means for voters who lack the required identification to otherwise identify themselves and cast a ballot.

Republicans pushing restrictive voter ID laws claim to do so to counter election fraud. There is, however, no evidence of widespread voter fraud in contemporary U.S. elections.

The dramatic advances in computing technology over even just the past decade mean that the government has much more power today in collecting, storing, and analyzing information about all of us. A national ID system, especially if linked with other government databases, can paint a picture in fine-grained detail about where we go, who we talk to, where we worship, and where we stand on sensitive political issues, among many other sensitive data points.

As a nation, we live by the principle that the government should not be able to collect such information without cause. A national ID system turns that fundamental principle on its head. We must continue to support basic freedoms and protect against our becoming a country where the government can demand, “Papers, please.”