This paper explores how citizens justify support for or opposition to photo ID laws during structured public deliberations. Using transcript data provided by the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab, participant arguments were categorized into thematic areas including election security, voter accessibility, and economic equity. Supporters of photo ID laws frequently emphasized the importance of preventing fraud and maintaining the integrity of elections, often comparing voting ID requirements to routine identification checks in daily life. In contrast, opponents focused on barriers to access, citing issues like lack of transportation, documentation mismatches, and economic hardship that can disproportionately affect low-income and marginalized communities. Some participants expressed nuanced, supporting ID requirements only if access to identification could be guaranteed for all eligible voters. These findings reveal both deep ideological divides and opportunities for compromise, suggesting that deliberative forums offer a valuable space for thoughtful civic engagement on controversial voting policies.