I hope that when you consider this proposal, you will bear a couple things in mind.  Public comment isn't about numbers, first of all.  I will commend Republicans that they will jump through ANY number of hoops to vote whereas Democrats sadly will not after a while.  Likewise, that phenomen won't change in the arena of public comment on a voting proposal; Republicans will come out of the woodwork and comment, and Democrats will not.  But keep in mind that that's what this whole thing is about.  Erecting or maintaining hurdles to keep the people we don't want voting from voting is not acceptable.  The Constitution doesn't allow that, and none of us should really want to live in a nation in which that sort of thing would be allowed or encouraged.  It ends up hurting both parties in the long run.  When one party never faces any real competition, then that party never really has any motivating tension to present its best self in the battle for election, to come up with superior ideas.  When I was a child, I had a pretty balanced view of the two parties in this country, but I see Republicans unwilling to evolve on certain inevitable social changes, and trying to hang on to power or to maintain the relative balance of power by disenfranchising their opponents wherever possible rather than by trying to be what voters want or by trying to present superior ideas.  This isn't good for anyone.  That is nonrepresentative democracy.  One of the worst things that ever happened to the GOP was Reagan inventing his 11th commandment, not to speak ill of any fellow republican.  As a result, the GOP has turned off its self-cleaning function and is unable to run cancers out of its own ranks.  This 11th Commandment has become systemic and there will be no tension to evolve out of it unless that tension is put onto it by the other party.  Disenfranchising that other party removes that tension as well.  So while I understand the GOP desire to hang onto every seat possible, I don't understand the GOP desire not to be held to a higher standard and to be forced to evolve into the best incarnation of their own party that they can be.  Seriously, how many times do you need to ask a voter on one form if they are old enough to vote?  When there is no other explanation for some of these features of the form or for the draconian solution of rejecting the form for insignificant problems, then the logical conclusion is that the form must be modified and the forms must be reviewed with an eye ONLY towards the avoidance of (empirically speaking, statistically nonexistent) voter fraud.