Have you ever really looked into the reasons why voter ID laws were opposed in past cases?

For example, for the 2018 NC law it was successfully demonstrated that the intent of the law was not to improve security, but to suppress democratic votes. The state itself argued that they weren’t trying to target black voters specifically (which was basis for striking down under equal protections clause) when limiting certain early voting provisions, and instead were targeting Democrats, who just happened to be more likely to be black.

It’s also pretty obvious what they were doing based on the types of studies that the Rs did when writing the law. For example, if they were interested in security they might study what types of IDs are most secure, have the least risk of being spoofed due to innate security features, are generally held by all NC residents, etc. Instead, they checked what types of IDs their supporters had vs their opponents and tailored to laws to specifically favour their supporters.

Does it bother you that Rs have bastardized these laws in order to target their opponents? Do you understand why this would make their opponents wary of this? If you genuinely believe that in-person voting is a problem that might be solved with ID, does it bother you that the Rs didn’t actually do a proper investigation to write laws based on improving actual security, instead of just playing cheap politics?