Timing is suspect in voter ID complaint

In reading Catherine Rampell's Nov. 16 editorial, "New voting laws may be deciding some elections," I believe her conclusions were slanted and naive. She points out that 21,000 people tried to register in Kansas but couldn't because "they lacked necessary documentation" for proof of citizenship and that may have caused Paul Davis, a Republican, to beat his challenger. Did she ever think that maybe, just maybe, those 21,000 weren't citizens and shouldn't be testing the system and voting in the first place? If any of them went for a passport, or a mortgage, or a driver's license (in a state that doesn't pass them out like candy), they couldn't acquire such without similar documentation.

Also, she states that the Government Accountability Office report estimates the requirement law reduced turnout by about 17,000 votes. Maybe, just maybe, those people didn't show up because they knew they couldn't qualify as legal voters. It makes one wonder how many elections in past years, before the new law, were won by a boat load of unqualified voters. Those laws are there "to give Americans confidence in the integrity of the democratic process."

It is a coincidence that she brought this up now because the Democrats have lost many elections?

Carl R. Patek

South Barrington