It's not racist at all. Racism is the term thrown out every time the left doesn't like a law. It works well so they use it for just about everything.
The first argument against this is that there a very few documented cases of in person voter fraud. Well, clearly if you're not checking the identification to begin with, then you'll never be able to prove it. The political left likes to refuse to enforce laws and then tell you that there is no evidence of a crime taking place. I guess if we didn't prosecute murder, then we would have a very low homicide conviction rate as well. So we should just ignore the fact that there are counties that have more votes than registered voters. The truth is that voter prosecution data reflects reality about as much as the number of prosecutions of kids drinking under 21 demonstrates how many have actually had an underage drink. I am not saying it's as pervasive. Only that if you consciously choose not to aggressively prosecute something, than your data on documented cases is greatly flawed.
The second argument is the inability to obtain ID. First of all, in most states the cost to obtain an id even if you don't drive is less than $20 every 7 years or so. But many have proposed giving the ID out for free to combat the argument that it's not affordable for some. Keep in mind that it's illegal under Federal law to open up a bank account without proper ID for the last decade. I tend to wonder just how many of them have a savings or checking account to deposit things like Social Security checks or to pay a bill. If you can afford a cell phone which are everywhere in the poorest neighborhoods, you can afford an ID.
Another common argument is that these proposals pop up just before an election to surprise people. That assumes that only Democrats would be surprised by a new law. However, in this recent case you have this being applied well before a major election, and giving plenty of time to the potentially disenfranchised to prepare for this requirement.
The reality is that it makes perfect sense to verify who is voting, and that they're eligible to vote. The only reason why anyone would be rationally opposed to this, whether they admit it or not, is they think their preferred candidate is likely to benefit more from whatever potential fraud is out there more than those they oppose. But they will come up with the most ridiculous excuses about why it is so difficult to complete the simplest of tasks.