A trivial example is like I mentioned above. In Massachusetts, since there are no voter ID laws, I can walk into my local voting precinct and cast a vote on behalf of anyone whose address and name I know. I could do that as many times as I wanted to, for as many people as I know. I could vote a dozen times as a dozen people with ease. Someone who isn't a registered voter could do the same.

Instances like above probably don't have a direct impact on the outcome of elections (then again, neither does anyone who voted for the losing candidate, no matter how plentiful), but they undermine trust and faith in the democratic process, lower voter efficacy, reduce turnout, etc.

Voter suppression is actively trying to deny the rights of citizens, while 'enabling' (no I.D., easy to vote) is just a side effect of allowing people to exercise their constitutional right without having to get a government ID.

You have every right to feel the way you do, but to me it seems like a lopsided comparison. When one party is trying to remove a right and one party is allowing access to that right (even if a few people take advantage of it, but I am not convinced this occurs), this strikes me as evidently 'one wrong, and one right though a little sloppy'. Comparing the two as on equal footing doesn't seem honest.