If it's "hey we need this specific ID issued by the state that requires your birth certificate, social security card, another ID, and the blood of a virgin to acquire" then it is a problem.
It's a combination of precisely that kind of hoop-jumping that is required in the states where it gets knocked down, coupled with shortening voting hours, limiting the number of days of early voting, more stringent requirements for voting by mail, etc., that add up to voter suppression.
In addition, the voting ID requirement in particular is being sold to the public as a solution for a problem that almost literally does not exist. In the past 30 years, of the literally billions of votes cast at the state and national level, there have been fewer than 500 cases prosecuted for in-person voter fraud (the only kind voter ID laws affect), with only a couple dozen convictions.
Nationwide. In the process, hundreds of thousands of voters have either been struck from the rolls entirely, or forced to vote by other, provisional methods which are only counted when elections are otherwise close.
It's nasty business all around.
I'd also like to point out that most people have no problem requiring an ID to purchase a gun. If it's discriminatory in one case, why not in the other?
1) in the case of gun ownership, requiring ID is the first step in initiating a background check to ascertain whether you are legally barred from owning a weapon that could kill people.
2) since voting is the more fundamental right- the one which safeguards all others- the government has a higher burden of proving that you should have it denied. When, as pointed out, the reward of combating largely mythological in-person voter fraud is vastly outweighed by the demonstrable risk of disenfranchising voters there is a serious problem.
