No, not this decision anyway.

It's no big secret to polls workers why the GOP backs these laws whilst the Dems don't--by far Dems don't have the IDs that these laws often require or proposed laws would require. Voters fraud isn't the real issue but a pretext to cover a cynical objective of jingling the table to knock out some Dem voters, especially states where urban Dem voters are key to winning the state (PA, MI, etc). In short, it's political gamesmanship.

That said, asking for ID to prevent fraud has an objective rational purpose.

Thus, I view it much like pretextual car stops where cops stop cars for actual vehicle code violations (even if extremely petty and wouldn't ordinarily motivate a cop to stop the car) so they can look for things like DUI or drugs of which they don't have reasonable suspicion to actually stop the car to search for them. Even though the motivation is dark, it's a legal way to pull it off.

Thus, I agree that the law should have been upheld--it has a reasonable objective apart from its real motive.

However, I agreed with it because the Indiana law also had provisions in it that allow people without ID to vote at the polls--they can get free IDs for voting or submit provisional ballots at the polls where they can simply verify their identities within several days following the election and their votes will then ben counted.

If I were on the SCOTUS, I would not validate any law that restricts IDs to those that cost fees or have barriers to obtaining. Constructively requiring someone to pay any kind of fee in order to vote would violate the Poll Tax Prohibition Amendment of the Constitution IMO and otherwise violate the right to vote for which, being a right, no fee should ever be required to exercise. Moreover, things like driver's licences have barriers such as suspensions and revocations for unrelated matters to voting (vehicle and crimes code violations, child support enforcement, medical impediments, possession of uninsured vehicles, etc). IDs can also be lost or revoked just prior to voting. Thus, a free and unhindered ID avenue plus the right to cast a provisional ballot at the poll followed by a reasonable amount of time to verify identity would be along the lines of what I'd personally accept as a SCOTUS justice. Such measures accomplish the goal of reducing fraud without allowing the illegitimate purpose and/or result of denying someone their right to vote.