Votes for and against a photo ID measure

Re “GOP Advances Enforcement-First Approach for Border,” Sept. 21

The House-approved voter photo ID bill will soon go to the Senate. Despite the smoke screen, the bill’s sole purpose is to disenfranchise poor and minority voters who generally support Democratic candidates.

The strategy is to gain a marginal advantage in elections and thereby win, if underhandedly, and to ultimately establish a one-party government. It is ironic that we profess to bring democracy to the Mideast while we gleefully destroy it here.

DEAN POIRIER

Duluth, Ga.

*

Re “House Takes Up Voter IDs,” Sept. 20

The Times writes: “Democrats say that the move to impose a national photo ID requirement is part of a Republican effort to discourage participation by low-income and minority voters likely to back Democratic candidates -- a charge GOP lawmakers strongly deny.” Identification is required for bank accounts, acquiring driver’s licenses, purchasing liquor and tobacco, marriage licenses and death certificates. No one claims that this discourages minorities or those of low income. Isn’t the sanctity of the ballot box equal to the purchase of a pack of cigarettes?

GREG STRANGIS

Manhattan Beach

*

Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Mich.) is wrong when he says photo ID is required to vote in Canada. I have been voting in Canada for 40 years and never needed more than confirmation of my address -- for example, a utility bill.

PATRICIA CLARKE

Toronto, Canada