The secondary headline for the June 18 editorial “ A finding for the franc hise ” stated that “access to the polls trumps the threat of voter fraud,” suggesting that we who are concerned about voter fraud should acquiesce because of the solemnity of access. I reject that as a simplistic response to the Supreme Court’s ruling this week.

In response to the possibility of lethal contamination of our food supply, would The Post say, “Access to food trumps the threat of death from poisoning”? I think not. Neither starvation nor death from poisoning is an acceptable outcome. In such a circumstance, The Post would call urgently both to provide safe food and to solve the contamination problem. Correspondingly, there should be an urgent call to ensure the purity of our electoral processes, both by guaranteeing access and by prohibiting fraud with equal vigor. One of these should not “trump” the other.

Allowing an ineligible person to cast a vote effectively denies access to some legitimate voter, since that bogus ballot will cancel out the legitimate one. Those who cry “voter suppression” in the face of attempts to combat voter fraud are no less guilty of disenfranchisement than are those who would intentionally attempt to deny access.

Gary Moore, West River