Now that it will be as inconvenient to vote as it to buy liquor we can prepare for horror stories about the disenfranchisement of the poor, minority, and elderly.   Oh the humanity!  Quite frankly the type of voter who finds getting a free photo DID so burdensome they don't vote is someone I'd rather not have vote anyway. If that is how little they think of their most basic right they probably shouldn't be trusted with it in the first place. 

Always one to offer creative solutions here's one: let's use liquor stores as polling places!  The above "hardest hit" might not even notice and, given the current and former cast of elected officials, how it could be worse?  

Seriously though, it really is about damn time.  And why it took the Supreme Court to interpret the glaringly obvious says way more about the old system preservationists than it does about voting rights. As far as appeals go the Supreme Court is the last stop so those folks have no excuses from a constitutional standpoint. 

The question that will remain ever so conveniently unanswered however, is why so many were so heavily invested in preserving dirty elections.  I'd bet the farm that the closer you look the more you'd find the loudest critics of photo ID had the most to lose from clean elections.  (hint, search to your left)    

A Victory Against Voter Fraud David Frum Wall Street Journal offers good analysis and back story.

Thinking of it another way,
 
1884 - -  George Eastman improved photographic technology to make it more functionally useful, relatively fast, more efficient, and less expensive.

2008 - - U.S.Government allows this 124 year-old technology to be used to protect our most sacred franchise.

Par for government work.