Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant.
---
And all the states includes in the study seems to have disagreed with the methodology used:
---
In comments on draft report excerpts the Kansas, Tennessee, and Arkansas Secretary of State Offices disagreed with GAO's criteria for selecting treatment and comparison states and Kansas and Tennessee questioned the reliability of one dataset used to assess turnout.
---
To me it seems the answer is then "let's have community outreach to help every eligible over get an acceptable ID. Even subsidize free ID that can be used for voting" not "let's not have any IDs".
Also coming from Europe and knowing that other countries with even more poverty and somehow manage to have an ID https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_(India) and here despite all the insinuations and allegations of voter fraud and all the talk and energy spent on elections people are still against IDs.
I picked the GAO report because they have a reputation for solid, unbiased work. But a quick google will find you many other citations. Quite a few people have come independently to the conclusion that it decreases turnout among populations that tend to vote Democrat.
So that's a problem. Making ID cards free would probably help, but the other issue is that you're weighing the potential disenfranchisement of some marginalized people on one side against a phantom "voter fraud" boogeyman on the other side. In-person voter fraud basically never happens. There's no need to take any steps to stamp it out.
There are so many better ways to spend that time and effort -- improving the vote-by-mail process, to pick an easy example.
Which demographics are those?