As to voter id, consider how hard it is to commit in-person fraud simply requiring inputting a matching signature in a voter roll book. You can't just make up a name (one can also require an address or even a code you are given beforehand). You have to forge a signature you probably never saw before. [The most likely scenario is that you vote for a friend etc. who can't be there -- which is bad, but not really the perceived problem.] Hope that person doesn't vote that day. That the name you choose isn't someone the poll worker knows. And, you have to do this in person, in a few moments.
There is probably more problems, and for something that isn't very productive anyway. Besides, why in-person photo ids? It has been noted that to the degree there is a voter fraud problem (and things like phone jamming and politically timed prosecutions suggests voter disenfranchisement is a more serious issue) that absentee voting would open up more problems. But, voter photo id laws do not help here. This is not say you have to be in person to show id. The number of photos on let's say Facebook websites underlines the point. In fact, I was able to send my photo to obtain a state id in one instance.
As with motor voter laws, various sites can be set up to allow the scanning etc. required to send the photos to the proper authorities. Likewise, for home bound sorts, the people probably have in person service providers that can take their picture (and information) to process the ids. And, it is noted that it can be hard to get the proper papers. So, the government has to do some heavy lifting in a few cases, but if there is this real serious voter fraud problem, the solution is not to arbitrarily deprive the basis of republican government. And/or you can set up booths at polling places to take the pictures on Election Day, though the paperwork rules still can be harsh in some cases.
Of course, you cannot take this law at face value.* The Supremes were ridiculous to do so, something they surely would not do with a burden on the freedom of speech. Voting is if anything more fundamental, especially as compared to some aspects of freedom of speech. BTW, having finally watched it ... wicked appearance of the Supremes on Boston Legal. I saw them on his other show Picket Fences a while back, but who would have thought James Spader's character would be more goofy than that guy (think a very Jewish William Shatner, or rather, his character on BL).
Lol. I never watch this show, but maybe I should!
---
* I responded to a claim that it's soooo easy to get id and there is some real problem, assumptions that those old things called facts disposes of, and eventually the person made a form of ad hominem attack and changed the subject. This is sorta of the point of using non-elective branches to help defend fundamental rights and disadvantaged groups against ill advised / unconstitutional actions of elective officials. Carolene Products case and all that.
Anyway, it is akin to a depressing discussion I had with someone about Sean Bell, consisting of (1) I hate Al Sharpton and (2) Bell kinda asked for it and is a bad character. As if reckless use of firearms only hurt people who ask for it that are likely to get Sharpton's support. Basically, said person had a prejudice and the basic humanity of the individuals disappeared. Said person knows people who could very well be in dangerous locales. Questionable characters. Said person was open to department sanction. Why, if they really did nothing wrong?
Reason only goes so far here, but you try to use it as best you can, especially when its utility leads the other side to try to use it too. Consider, e.g., Intelligent Design using "science" to defend itself. And, sometimes, it fights our biases.