If right to vote is so precious, why be so lax in setting rules?

RE “NORTH Carolina voting law: Red herrings at the polls” (Editorial, Aug. 15): The real red herring is the argument that proper identification is a burden to the poor, the elderly, and minority voters, and that the imposition of this requirement impedes their constitutional right to vote. Once the argument is framed this way, it appears that those attempting to rationalize voter fraud legislation intend to harm the poor, the elderly, and minority voters.

If the right to vote is so sacrosanct, how can any American who values that right accept that there will always exist the possibility that the process will be compromised because of intentionally lax voter identification requirements?

Voter fraud legislation is not designed to keep certain voters from the polls; it is designed to keep the voting process honest and transparent. Those framing the issue any other way are motivated by politics, not process.

Sean F. Flaherty