Voting and Bank Deposits?

A column in the New York Times has many important and worthwhile things to say about the care due to ensure the right to vote. It also has what seems to me to be a very bad analogy:

No bank would be allowed to withdraw money from a depositor's account based on the sort of rough name matches and loose procedures used in voter purges. The right to vote should be treated with the same respect as a bank deposit, and guarded as carefully.

Unless I'm even more confused than I think I am, there are three problems with this analogy:

1. Analogy Agreement. The author first establishes a point using the example of bank withdrawals, then makes a claim about deposits.
2. False Empirical Assumption. Bank deposits aren't guarded very carefully; I've deposited paychecks on behalf of friends (into their own accounts). There's no reason to guard deposits all that carefully; if someone wants to deposit money into someone's else's account, few people would mind.
3. Too-weak Normative Claim. Relatedly, the right to vote should be treated very carefully -- much more so than the right to deposit money into someone's account.

All three of these problems could be fixed by a closing paragraph that said:

No bank would be allowed to withdraw money from a depositor's account based on the sort of rough name matches and loose procedures used in voter purges. The right to vote should be treated with the same respect as a bank withdrawal, and guarded as carefully.

I guess I'll go ahead and tentatively assume that's what they meant. Still, it's a pretty obvious and weird kind of mistake to show up in something like the New York Times. Am I making some kind of mistake in my analysis?