Is there a logical fallacy on either side of this interchange?

Is there a logical fallacy on either side of this interchange?

A:   Voting laws should require that copies of a drivers license or other picture ID be shown to prevent fraudulent ballots to be submitted.

B:   Laws that require such IDs make it more difficult to vote and there’s no evidence that widespread fraudulent voting is an issue.  Therefore such laws are an attempt to suppress the vote.

A:   The fact that there’s no evidence of widespread fraudulent voting doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws to make sure it doesn’t happen.  There’s no evidence of a widespread problem of people getting on planes who aren’t who they say they are but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws to make sure it doesn’t happen.

I would say that "B" contains strawman fallacy . "A" mentions "to prevent fraudulent ballots to be submitted" and "B" is arguing against "widespread fraudulent voting". It is reasonable to want to take actions to prevent any fraudulent voting. "B" should have addressed this claim such as:

B:   Laws that require such IDs make it more difficult to vote. The cost of such laws would be far greater than any benefit given that there’s no evidence of widespread fraudulent voting. This is a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease.

"A's" answer is quite good given the argument "B" made. It is a strong analogy. However, this analogy would fall apart if the "B" response above was given. Given that flying is not a constitutional right, the cost of not being able to fly without an ID is a reasonable one.

As for the content of the argument itself, reasonable people can disagree on the cost/benefits here. As long as accurate data is being used and this concern isn't the result of an unfounded conspiracy.