It's all doable, but the problem the courts have is there is no demonstrated advantage to getting the Photo IDs over the IDs accepted in states with more lenient rules, and there is simply no doubt who these rules affect and it's poor people, mostly minorities, mostly urban. We all know these people lean democratic. And we're all adults and know that GOP officials in red states know without any doubt this helps GOP candidates, which is why they're being pushed so hard despite NO, ZERO, NADA, NONE evidence that impersonation fraud at the polls rises above trivial.
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
IMO, this would have resonated more if they had saved this effort for the 2016 presidential election, since an awful lot of people don't bother to vote in the midterms. Maybe this time will be different, since you practically have your choice of things to be angry about - immigration; ACA; hostilities all over the planet; Ebola; various scandals; and several others. Probably not though - the average person on the street just isn't interested, since they feel they can't do anything about it anyway!
Just being able to open a checking account instead of going to the check cashing place would save them a lot of money, no doubt more than they would be out of pocket for a birth certificate and so on.
So, wouldn't getting an ID be an advantage to the urban poor, even if, as is being claimed, voter fraud is minimal?
Edit: and don't they need a picture ID if they get food stamps or Medicaid? We're talking about the poor here, aren't we?
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?