Thank you.  Good point about under-reported (and presumably unintentional?) voter fraud, or voter "fraud" might be more accurate :-).  If an official wants to make a good-faith effort to reduce that fraud, that's fine.  But that's not what the exact-match requirement is designed to do, and it's not the effect it has: after all, if someone's voting in the wrong precinct, the difference between voter rolls isn't going to be the presence or absence of "Ms." on their name, or the inclusion of a hyphen or a tilde or something -- it's going to be that that person no longer lives at that address.  Exact string matching is a non-sequitur for this; it's not in the solution space for this problem.  However, it *is* a good way to disproportionately disenfranchise certain classes of voters... who just happen to tend to vote Democratic.

If you were trying to solve the problem of voters showing up at the wrong precincts, then I'm sure you'd come up with some good methods of handling that.  That is not what officials are trying to do with these requirements, and that's clear because one can see that the requirements they impose don't respond to these problems.

I mean, the *first* question to ask is, in these situations is the voter even trying to deceive anyone?  If it's just a matter of "Oh, this isn't your precinct", then you can just ask the voter where they live and figure it out with their cooperation.  How often did you encounter people lying about their street address in order to... fraudulently cast a ballot in a different precinct?  So they could, what, affect one judicial race, or a school board race?  By at most _one_ vote?  Given the penalties for fraud, that seems like it would be a pretty rare scenario.

Regarding addresses: if the government is going to require that people have street addresses to vote, then it's up to the government to give them street addresses in the first place (which it did not).  But there is no law requiring that a person have a street address in the first place.

Enfranchisment shouldn't require burdensome proof that goes beyond what people's normal lives already require, and clearly, if people were making do without a street address or a non-expired photo ID up until the election, then they were making do.  We don't need to speculate about the inconvenience in rest of their life -- that's their problem, if it is a problem at all.  The question is: what steps to take to get accurate, legal elections?  The steps being taken by some election officials are both ineffective and partisan.