Instead, the states that are implementing voter ID laws are primarily states that used techniques like poll tests to disenfranchise minority voters, have limited access to ID issuing facilities in areas where voters tend to lack ID, and require documentation for issuance that people may not possess.
Seen through that lens, it's difficult to see America's regional interest in voter ID as anything other than a disingenuous attempt to continue to disenfranchise minority voters.
https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/driver/id/
Most of the commentary about voter ID laws here is from ignorant politically motivated journalists who find it easy to look down and judge southern states because everything they're doing must be racist and we're morally superior in every way. They don't even bother to look at what it's arguing. Sorry, but it gets a little tiring, and when it comes to this attitude of regarding southerners as ignorant and prejudice it's often the most ironic example of the pot calling the kettle black. It's harder to do something so basic as get utilities turned on in a new apartment to say nothing of a passport, and an ID would be required anyway for that, that anyone of basic competence can do it and it isn't some great imposition on them. It's not a literacy test or requiring proof of land ownership or anything like that.
The point being, whether voter ID is restrictive depends on how widespread accepted ID is, and what the barriers to getting such ID are. I recall that, much like gerrymandering, there are cases where US state legislators explicitly demanded demographic information on ID ownership before moving forward with voter ID laws.
That is to say, there isn't just correlation between voter-id proposals and partisan advantage, there are clear signs of actual intent.
Furthermore, in the absence of any widespread voter fraud, what purpose does it serve or accomplish other than to intimidate or disenfranchise voters? Voter ID only makes sense when there are concerns about fraudulent activity.