Identifying voters

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and all but four House Democrats think you shouldn't have to show so much as a library card to vote -- and the New York Times couldn't be happier.

In an editorial yesterday on the voter ID bill that passed on a 228-196 party-line vote, the NYT lamented how the Republican Party's "strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression," calling the proposed guidelines "shameful" and "onerous." That's some language, even for the reliably liberal NYT.

So, here's what the bill would require: First, to register to vote a person must provide proof of citizenship, which in the case of most citizens is a matter of showing a driver's license; and second, when voting a person must show photo identification. Onerous indeed. Even former President Jimmy Carter -- who parades himself these days as the world's election monitor-in-chief -- endorsed these guidelines last year in a bipartisan commission studying election fraud and reform. You know it's a red-letter day when Democrats take issue with Mr. Carter.

But whereas Mr. Carter's campaigning days are long gone, House Democrats have the future to think about. Voter fraud is easy enough in many states where all one needs to do to register is fill out the registration form. In a country with at least 12 million illegal aliens -- all being actively sought by the Democratic Party with promises of citizenship -- this is a disturbing enough proposition. That it doesn't happen terribly often doesn't mean the federal government shouldn't try to shut down what fraud does occur, especially when the United States is heavily engaged abroad with building legitimate democracies.

Mrs. Pelosi and her caucus, however, argue exactly the opposite. Requiring voters to prove citizenship and show a photo ID, in their view, delegitimizes the democratic process. To them, it's also racist, "classist" and oppressive. If that's the case, then whenever you try to get a driver's license, buy liquor, rent a car or a movie, borrow a book, receive Social Security, you're a victim of racism and classism. It's strange then that we don't see millions of library-goers protesting the oppressive librarians.

Fortunately, 81 percent of voters disagree with the Democratic position, according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Going into an election, one must wonder why the Democrats would consciously oppose such a large segment of the voting public. The general rule in these instances is to look at the various interest groups pulling the purse strings -- in this case, the illegal-alien lobby, the very folks who have the least to gain from stricter voting requirements.