Voter ID: Franchise protection |

Voter ID: Franchise protection

A campaign to squash states’ voter ID laws fell flat against the facts in Virginia. That’s where a federal judge upheld the Old Dominion’s law requiring voters to show identification at the polls.

The Virginia Democratic Party argued that the state’s requirement “unconstitutionally” suppressed voting by blacks, Latinos and young people. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson didn’t buy it.

“Virginia has provided all of its citizens with an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process,” Judge Hudson wrote.

The Virginia challenge is part of a much broader campaign to turn back voter integrity and to pry open the door to fraud. The campaign is being financed in part by leftist George Soros, who has vowed at least $5 million in funding, The Washington Free Beacon reports.

But as prior cases demonstrate, simply demonizing voter-ID laws — which have increased voters’ participation in some states —is a fool’s argument.

In Ohio, the Democratic Party had to find a different front group after a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative hit a snag. That group came under investigation for fraudulent voter registrations, The Beacon reported.

Voter fraud is a fact. Disenfranchisement via voter IDs is not. But that hasn’t turned back liberals’ courtroom antics to help schemers vote — and to presumably vote often — in this year’s presidential election.

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.