Nick is way out of line in criticizing your vote the way he did because he simply didn't 1) know your motivations 2) apparently grasp all of nuances of this bill, the political strategies at play, etc. 3) he places too much importance on this bill - which in the grand scheme of the universe isn't worth criticizing fellow-Republicans about (if you vote for tax increase, a serious expansion of government, a dimunition of individual rights, etc., then its' worth talking about) nor is it a wedge issue really for either side (at least in isolation).

But that leads me to question you, not just for the reasons I agreed with Nick in conclusion only on the vote but more to your charge that "too few Republicans legislators actually read the bill."  Like you only speaking for yourself, I can only speak to the observations I made - my boss was among the 30 who voted against it. I won't relay any of the why or what's about his vote or motivations (it's frankly not my decision anyway), but I know for a fact he read the bill back and forth for nuances as to whether it was good law.  And there may have been others of the 30 (and probably many others of the Democrats voting yes who didn't read it either) that generally oppose NRAV for a philosophical reason who didn't carefully read the bill because they knew they'd support no possible version of it and it wasn't something they needed to invest valuable time and resource in reading.  I don't think anyone voted on this issue for non-genuine reasons.  I love the Amash voting record - understand your vote on this issue - and hope that Nick's overreaction (and that's not a personal criticism of Nick, either - I think he's well motivated here for his own reasons) doesn't generate more than the tiny puff of smoke it really is.

Finally, I really wonder what you're relying on to think that the e-mail/fax change isn't important or that its easier to commit fraud by mail than by e-mail/fax.  Let's think for a second - first, mail fraud is a federal felony, so the penalty is much, much higher than the state elections law section. And it should be.  Indeed, bona fide election fraud is something I'd put as co-equal in seriousness to the highest white collar crimes - assuming of course you're not talking about the type of "fraud" (having an First Amendment opinion that some think "misrepresents" an issue in a way they don't like) some extremists would like to legislate against.  Second, and more physically, I can take a signature from someone on one document, scan it in, then Photoshop that signature onto the e-mail/fax election form, in about 60 seconds. Hard to detect and prove. An original signature sent by mail would at least require "tracing", and handwriting analysts have a chance at catching that because different people pause and apply pressure in different ways and with different timing than others, and no matter how good the trace is that can most often be proven. In fact, digital signature (in person) technologies on digital pads are often programmed to time a person's strokes, making the signature even more fingerprint-like - certainly increasing the forensic possibilities.  Finally, if a person is forced to commit that fraud in person that's a strong disincentive.  I don't understand your conclusion then that e-mail/fax is easier to detect - but another issue is that e-mail/fax is easier to MASS-PRODUCE your fraud with.  If you could collect a large number of digitized signatures, you'd be in business with a number of system possibilities, including ones you might know would "get caught" but might dissuade voters from voting (imagine an operative targeting Republican primary voters in a general election by creating duplicate ballots and then challenging Republican votes that "apparently" voted twice).