Quite a stretch of an assumption on your part, I'd say. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy on clear display by the Republican party- the party of smaller, less intrusive government- wanting more government intervention in voting rights.
"Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal." Fairvote.org
What I am in favor of is a Constitutional amendment affirming the right to vote, which a vast majority of people believe exists in this country when, in fact, it does not. As a matter of fact, the United States is 1 of but 11 democracies in the entire world that do not have the right to vote affirmed by a constitutional amendment.
Once that is in place, voting registration, eligibility and the voting process becomes standardized, thereby preventing what the Republican party attempted prior to the most recent election- voter suppression and are now attempting via gerrymandering.
Both democrats and republicans believe that government should be more involved in some areas, less involved in others. The only difference is which areas they believe government should or should not be involved in. Ignoring the accusations and the usual partisan tripe in your comments, the right of the citizens to vote actually is mentioned in the constitution. 26th amendment specifically names the right to vote.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote
Its also mentioned in the 24th amendment under similar circumstances. So it actually is a named right in the constitution, but the constitution only gives reasons that it can or cannot be restricted. A new amendment might clarify but that would depend on the wording of the amendment.
Fwiw, I doubt you are correct that voting process would become standardized. Many states (red and blue) would see an amendment that would allow the federal government to impose standards on state elections as unwarranted and would never approve the amendment. And an amendment that only guaranteed the right to vote wouldn't necessarily impose those standards.
Btw, gerrymandering is definitely a bipartisan activity. Case in point, NC 12th district.