In principal I'm OK with a requirement to show ID to vote. The principal being that obtaining ID must be easy, accessible to all, convenient, and have a low cost barrier. The practical application isn't consistent with these principals.

Example: Alabama. Voter ID laws were passed there. Closure of DMV offices were announced a few months ago, with the majority of those being in areas that have heavy minority populations. In many cases, entire counties will no longer have DMV offices, putting people over an hour away from a DMV office. I'm not sure what the hours are like there, but if they're like Michigan it's business hours, limited Saturday hours, one night a week that's open a little later. I'll give the state the benefit of the doubt and say that it's an unintended consequence, but if you're a poor laborer as many rural Alabama residents are, the practical ability to easily obtain an ID makes it such that voter disenfranchisement will be the result. Not giving the state the benefit of the doubt, it could well be stacking the deck in favor of those who have more opportunity to obtain IDs under the new law and DMV infrastructure. Given a history of political games to stack the deck in favor of one party (i.e. Michigan's long-time gerrymandering problems), I wouldn't be surprised if the true fraud in Alabama's voter ID case is to suppress the vote rather than to stop cases fraud.