gregh  2006-11-08 16:14  elections  identity  information_privacy  Law  real_id   

The Cato Institute wonders if, especially in the "Live Free or Die" state, perhaps Real ID didn't have some impact on yesterday's election results:

Cato-at-liberty » REAL ID and a Sweep for Democrats in New Hampshire:

There are many explanations for the strong result Democrats got in the election yesterday. Focusing on New Hampshire, there is a neat correlation between support for the REAL ID Act and defeat at the polls yesterday.

Jeb Bradley was one of “several Washington officials . . . urging state senators to support Real ID” when the state legislature was considering a bill to reject it. He was defeated by Carol Shea-Porter, a surprise victor who enjoyed little help from national Democrats. Here’s Shea-Porter speaking at an anti-REAL-ID rally.

Representing the Second District, Charlie Bass was an original co-sponsor of the REAL ID Act, and he touted that fact on his Web site. His replacement is Paul Hodes. Hodes is not a full-throated critic of REAL ID, but he did tell AP, “I do not favor creating a new central federal database using the permanent images of these documents. . . . A piece of paper is not the solution to securing our borders from terrorism. We need to better coordinate our existing law enforcement databases and watch lists.”

New Hampshire resisted Real ID for a long time, until Congress offered to pay them off, and the state legislature caved. That was unfortunate, because a state holdout was going to be a good challenge to the practicality and legality of the act.

Now, perhaps the best hope for some sanity to return is for the Democrats to repeal the Real ID nonsense and bring some sensibility back to reliable identification. The U.S. Government should, presumably, be working to strengthen and protect identity. It shouldn't be working to weaken it.