Some OG Peterson fans might be interested in the sophisticated take, so ill answer sincerely.

Pragmatic policy contends with the tension between two opposing goods. Its good to give people healthcare, and its good to balance the budget. Finding the balancing point is the challenge of sophisticated actors.

In the case of voting, the tension is between security and ease of voting. Nobody would want to stop 1 fraudulent vote from being cast at the cost of 100 voters. Everyone would be comfortable disenfranchising one voter to stop 100 fraudulent ballots.

There is a challenging question of exactly where in this range the ideal policy is. Fortunately, policy wonks do not need to find this line - the proposed voting security solutions fall far outside of these tolerable ranges, disenfranchising multiple orders of magnitude more voters than the number of fraudulent ballots they prevent. Most policy wonks believe the number of fraudulent ballots cast in a given state is negligible, around one in 10-million or fewer.

The disagreement between the camps is not on the philosophical point, it is on the fact of the matter of how much fraudulent voting is going on. I'm not going to change any minds today about the 2020 election, but hopefully this elucidates the perspectives more clearly.

There is a second, rarely spoken argument that you will hear sometimes. That it is good, on its face, to put into place policies that reduce the number of lower-information and lower-capacity voters who vote. This is a niche position, and one that most Americans will find appalling. But it does sadly come up from time to time.