Disenfranchisement is a pretty rare political tactic on either the left or the right outside the United States, which has close to the lowest voter turnout rates among places that have genuine democratic elections.
For example, even Iran has higher voter turnout than the United States. In Iran, the ruling faction tends to manipulate elections (which aren't necessarily fair, but aren't a one party state either) by disqualifying candidates, rather than by limiting the franchise.
But, it is challenging to definitively classify either the ruling faction or the opposition in Iran on a Western style left-right axis. The ruling faction tends to be authoritarian, and the opposition tends to favor greater personal liberty, but, for example, a significant portion of Iranian voters inclined to support opposition candidates consists of very socially conservative Sunni Muslims.
Disenfranchisement As "Tribal" In Europe
Where there is disenfranchisement, it tends to be more "tribal" than partisan.
Most countries deny the vote to non-citizens, who are a substantial part of the resident population in some countries, and unlike the United States, most of the countries do not have "birthright citizenship". So, in countries including Japan and Germany, one can be a second or third generation immigrant and still be denied citizenship. (In Japan, this has little political impact because the percentage of the population that is Korean is so small.)
It is difficult to assign a partisan slant to these instances of disenfranchisement because, regardless of who instituted them in the first place, they tend to persist across left leaning and right leaning governments over time. Left learning parties, pretty much across the board, tend to be more pro-immigration than right leaning parties, so in that sense, the left tends not to use disenfranchisement, while the right does.
But, assigning partisan affiliation to the immigrant communities disenfranchised by these policies is also problematic.
On one hand, on a host of social issues, Muslim immigrants in Europe tend to be more conservative than native born populations, and tend not to be particularly socialistic in their economic policy views.
But, on the other other hand, Muslim immigrants in Europe have tended to affiliate and align in electoral politics with parties of the left, because of the Christian nationalist, anti-immigrant and anti-civil rights positions taken by parties of the right.
Arguably, one of the better cases of left wing suppression of a right wing minority's voting rights is in Burma, where the right wing military regime was replaced by a democratically elected regime led by its long time, Nobel Peace Prize winning, leader who was an opposition leader for decades.
While her regime is still quite authoritarian, it is arguably, in its roots, a left wing regime.
This regime denied civic rights to the Muslim Rohinga minority which is arguably a right wing leaning minority. But, the trouble with even this example is that the existing arguably left wing regime is continuing the policies put in place by the military junta, a right wing regime, before them.
So, again, voter suppression presents as a more "tribal" than partisan practice.
Many countries in Southeast Asia have generally conservative leaning Chinese minorities with many members who are denied the franchise on a "tribal" immigration based basis.
But, again, this disenfranchisement has been largely a bipartisan matter persisting across changes in the political leanings of the ruling governments over time.
The United States
It isn't unfair to view disenfranchisement in the United States as better described by a "tribal" model than a partisan one. But, this is somewhat obscured in places like Alabama, where voter suppression is greatest, because the identity between race and partisan affiliation is so strong that it is hard to distinguish racial/tribal voter suppression from partisan voter suppression.