I can see your point. I hope you can see mine, even if we ultimately don’t agree.
The right to dictate the form and fashion of our government is a fundamental right. The mechanism we have chosen to exercise that right is through voting. It logically follows that voting is a right. You cannot separate the two without compromising the fundamental rights of an individual.
Government can only passively coerce or forcefully suppress the exercise of our rights. It cannot remove them; they are an inherent component of our humanity.
The point of the court is that the state is not under an obligation to ensure that there is no inconvenience associated with voting. Thus, things like mail-in voting and no need for ID are not rights.
“The mechanism we have chosen” is the key word here. Mechanism chosen is a political issue, it is negotiable, it is subject to change, therefore it is not fundamental, which are neither negotiable nor subject to change.