I wish I had the time to delve a bit deeper into those case of voting restrictions, because they're both more interesting than the surface level reported by the media (which is approximately that "GOP only wants landowning white males to vote"); but I have a busy week, so I'll have to settle for a few short counter-points, even though I appreciate your reasoned discourse and would like to continue in more depth. I really do!
First, on the Allen v. Milligan case, it's illustrative to imagine instead what would be the appropriate number of majority-black districts? The state is 68.9% white and 26.8% black[0] and has seven congressional districts. 26.8% of seven is 1.876, so one (which is what it is currently) is too few and two is actually too many. If all districts reflected the state's demographics as a whole equally, none would be majority-black. Besides, I think it imprudent to assume that people vote on racial lines; as the majority opinion notes, "The Court’s opinion does not diminish or disregard the concern that [section 2 of the Voting Rights Act] may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States", and that "racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters". Both the majority and the dissents are worth reading, as usual.
On the second point of campus voting, I think there is reasonable room to argue on what the voting age should be. Prior to the 26th Amendment in 1971, the voting age was 21; which meant that for most of the country's history, young first-time voters already had many years of work experience under their belts and were further on their way to "adulthood". Nowadays, someone at the first-time voting age of 18 is less likely than ever to have worked[1].
Besides, if limiting suffrage is anti-democratic, then is expanding suffrage necessarily pro-democratic? There have been attempts at lowering the voting age to 16[2]; would it be considered anti-democratic to oppose such an action? And even states that are perennially unfriendly to big-C Conservatism based on voting record[3], like New York and New Jersey, were among states that made voting more difficult[4] recently.
All this to say: we should continue to have rational debates on the best way to ensure the ongoing health of the nation (that is, politics), and we would all be served better if one side was not depicted as acting against ("anti democratic pattern of behavior") that health, at least not without critical examination.
[0]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL
[1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012
[2]: https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-rein...
[3]: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ranking-t...
[4]: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/VOTING-RESTRIC...