Yes, you've got the right idea. There's no difference in meaning. The "to" before "go" can also serve as the particle for "to wait" or you can put another "to" in front of "wait." One "to" can serve as the particle for multiple verbs: I like to run, swim, lift weights and play basketball. You could put "to" in front of every infinitive verb ("to swim", "to lift weights", "to play basketball"), but it makes your speech or writing less repetitive when you just use one "to" to serve as the particle for a series of infinitives.

The term most people are describing is called an ELISION = "Elision is the omission of sounds, syllables or words in speech." As some have stated, there is no reason to repeat the word 'to' as it is grammatically balanced around the conjunction 'or'

I definitely recommend omitting the extra “to” in the second sentence. If you were to replace “have to” by using a similar verb, “must,” it might become more obvious: “I must never go to the mall or wait in line to pay.” Using “must” wouldn’t sound as natural, but it helps to remember that “to” is connected to “have” in similar situations.

The two sentences have slightly different meanings: "I never have to go to the mall or wait in line to pay." This sentence implies that the speaker doesn't need to go to the mall at all, and they also don't have to wait in line to pay anywhere else. It suggests a general avoidance of both going to the mall and waiting in line to pay. "I never have to go to the mall or to wait in line to pay." In this sentence, the addition of "to" changes the meaning. It suggests that the speaker doesn't need to go to the mall, but they might still need to wait in line to pay somewhere else. It separates the two actions, indicating that avoiding the mall and avoiding waiting in line are separate considerations. So, the first sentence suggests avoiding both the mall and waiting in line, while the second sentence suggests avoiding the mall but not necessarily waiting in line elsewhere.