That's not exactly true (see post #585). The court did review all types of citizenship because it said:
The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
IMO, the most direct way to determine if there was a right to vote for all citizens, is to decide the narrowest, most exclusive, original way to define citizens and review whether that was accompanied with a right to vote, which is explained pretty well in this paragraphs:
It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. [p172] But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.
After reviewing voting rights in the several states the court concludes:
Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage.
So acknowledged and agreed.