It's opponents claim that it overly burdened certain classes.

They were however unable to say ha the law was drafted or passes with the intent that a protected class was a target of the law in any manner. Their best argument was that "the poor" might have a hard time with the requirement.
That of course fails utterly when one realizes that these necessary licenses and fees can be had for free all one has to do is apply "in forma pauperis."

If the state requires you to have an ID in order to exercise a fundamental right like parenting, voting, or access to the courts all the fees are subject to waiver if the person seeking those things is impoverished. That's the law.