The only reason I asked that question—and thank you all for giving me quite full answers; you're very knowledgeable about that history—is that, first of all, a broader change occurred in the past and it wasn't quite the cause célèbre that it seems to have become now. That kind of mystifies me. I don't blame you for that; I just point this out.
But the second thing I want to point out is that vouching is actually a very imperfect solution. If you take a look at the Supreme Court case in Wrzesnewskyj v. Opitz, we find a population group for whom there is no vouching permitted under current rules. The court had to deal with that whole process. One of the things that has mystified me is that nobody—given all the talk there has been about people who are going to be disenfranchised by this—has said that vouching should be reintroduced for people living in these care facilities, despite the fact that is the clearest case where there could be no fraud occurring. So I find that this is serving more as a proxy for people's general frustration with other issues than it is a substantive issue. I don't mean to cast aspersions on anybody here, but it seems to me that has been the emotional calculus that is going on.
I must say that in the case of the example that was given out, the single woman who has to leave her home, there's a fundamental issue that vouching would not resolve anyway. Her residence is almost certainly in the poll where her abusive ex-husband is, and therefore, she would need him to vouch or someone in that area to vouch for her in order to go and vote. Although I sympathize with her plight, I think her problem is not really resolved by vouching. It's resolved by, perhaps, something else. Vouching itself is really not the solution to that, particularly if she lives in a place, an apartment building for example, where the only person she knows in that area is her husband. Do you see what I'm getting at?