The problem with the Texas case and others is the proponents can't demonstrate that 1) the impersonation fraud at the polls which is preventable by photo ID is more than trivial (2 cases in Texas, with 20 million votes cast) or 2) that the new rules make that trivial amount of fraud less likely. Furthermore, the estimates were about 600,000 registered Texas voters didn't have acceptable photo ID. Those that didn't were 2-3 times more likely to be hispanic or black, and poor, than anglo, and therefore the effect was clearly disproportionately on minorities which Texas has a long history of discriminating against. The law was passed on a fast track that was unprecedented (rules were changed in a manner not seen for a century) for no good reason, and much more.
And anyone who thinks the "point" of the fast tracked rules changes was to reduce "election fraud" is delusional. That's the stated reason, but the actual reason is clearly and obviously to help GOPers win elections in red states. As the judge pointed out, the area where virtually ALL "voter" fraud occurs is with absentee ballots and the emergency, fast tracked, legislation left those rules untouched. Gosh, could it be that demographics that lean republican in Texas are more likely to use absentee ballots? Of course.....