Voter fraud: Enabling lawbreakers |

Voter fraud: Enabling lawbreakers

Leave it to a group that’s supposedly concerned about voters’ “disenfranchisement” to advance an ill-advised cause that directly enables voter fraud.

The commonsense move by some states to clean up their voter rolls before the presidential election is being contested by the Advancement Project, a civil rights advocacy organization. It claims up to 10 million Hispanic voters will be disenfranchised because of “discriminatory voting policies” — that is, reviewing state and federal records and eliminating noncitizens from state rolls.

The Advancement Project is crying “Foul!” because these efforts “disproportionately impact … Latino citizens.” Yes, they do, when the majority of illegal aliens (and folks who are not yet legalized American citizens) tend to be Hispanic.

Under the Advancement argument, states should not remove noncitizens — even those who break federal law by illegally registering to vote.

It’s also argued that legitimate voters mistakenly are removed in these purges. Except none of the states reviewing voter rolls will remove anyone without first sending a written notice, The Heritage Foundation reminds. And even if their names are removed, those people are still allowed to cast provisional ballots.

The need for states to periodically update their voter rolls trumps the “cause” to keep noncitizens, and even dead people, on them.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.