Reading the opinion in Crawford . v. Marion County Election Board

Compare:

The State has identified several state interests that
arguably justify the burdens that SEA 483 imposes on
voters and potential voters. While petitioners argue that
the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns
and dispute both the significance of the State’s interests
and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests,
they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the
State has identified. Each is unquestionably relevant to
the State’s interest in protecting the integrity and reliability
of the electoral process....



A photo identification requirement imposes some burdens on
voters that other methods of identification do not share.
For example, a voter may lose his photo identification,
may have his wallet stolen on the way to the polls, or may
not resemble the photo in the identification because he
recently grew a beard. Burdens of that sort arising from
life’s vagaries, however, are neither so serious nor so
frequent as to raise any question about the constitutionality
of SEA 483; the availability of the right to cast a provisional
ballot provides an adequate remedy for problems of
that character.

Am I right to see an inconsistency here? That the frequency or magnitude of voter fraud is not relevant in addressing the state's interest in preventing it, but that the frequency or magnitude of burdens on the voter are? I am probably wrong and have mixed feelings about this case and I need to read further.