That is not the central point of contention. No one in this thread is opposing the requirement for specific ID, but people like you are jumping in and defending it, refusing to acknowledge the aspects of the law that are really being opposed (and are really, egregiously, stripping people of their rights).
You can't look at the one component of the voter ID law that is reasonable for preventing fraud and ignore all the obstacles and hoops that are coming with it because it's the obstacles and loops that are quite clearly stripping voters of their right to vote.
In the OP I outline what these extraneous obstacles are; I quote the judge that instituted the law who said he regrets it because it's not being used to prevent fraud, but is being used to disenfranchise voters; and I link to articles quote all the Republican lawmakers who have openly talked about suppressing votes with the voter ID law.
The obstacles and hoops coming with the requirement for ID are: changes being announced right before an election; government offices shut down in certain districts to prevent people from getting proper ID; voting stations shut down so that people have to wait up to 6-8 hours to vote; Republican lawyers on site to challenge voters who then need to find someone to come down and sign an affidavit stating that their friend is who they claim to be (even if they have the proper ID!); workers on site telling voters that they have the wrong ID when they in fact have the correct ID. There are more obstacles detailed in the OP.
So, to repeat, you can't look at the one reasonable aspect of the law and ignore what the real problem is and what people are trying to fight: the vast bullshit of legal mandates instituted alongside the requirement to carry specific ID.