Is it still necessary? Probably not but the Supreme Court did not strike down the law per se. It merely said the federal government can no longer use election data from 1972 to decide which parts of the country must seek Washington's approval for changes in election procedures.
Times have certainly changed since 1972. The reason Democrats don't want to acknowledge that is because they have been using the Voting Rights Act to commit voter fraud. Most people with good sense understand the logic in requiring someone to show their ID when they vote. Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act to prohibit certain areas that were under its control from changing their laws to require voter ID.
Make no mistake about it. The only reason one could possibly oppose voter ID is because they want people who aren't supposed to be voting to vote. They say it's an undue burden and have filed lawsuits to stop it but not once have they filed lawsuits to stop stores from carding people when buying alcohol. Not once have they filed a lawsuit saying it's an undue burden to require someone to show an ID when cashing a check or using a credit card or buying cigarettes. These are certainly things that occur with much more regularity than voting. If it were really about some kind of undue burden then why haven't they challenged these other instances where you're required to show your ID?
No, you see, proponents of not changing the Voting Rights Act to reflect modern times wanted to use antiquated data from an ugly era in our history to get as many Democrats elected as possible. That's what this argument has been about. It's shameful that such an important piece of legislation has been used in such a despicable manner. But it shouldn't come as such a surprise. The NAACP is now the NAAPC. It's no longer about the advancement of colored people. It's about the advancement of political correctness.
Don't believe me? Ask Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice.