There's nothing like a fake Nazi uniform to carry an otherwise important protest over the edge. Or maybe it was the apocalyptic quotations from Revelation that gave Saturday's State House rally against Real ID its fringe feel. Whatever the symbol that caught your eye, if you didn't know the underlying issue, you might have been tempted to turn away. If so, here's hoping you'll look again.

There are many reasons New Hampshire -and the rest of the states - should reject the federal mandate known as the Real ID Act of 2005. The most basic is the way it became law.

Real ID would, in effect, be a national identification card. That's almost revolutionary in a country where law-abiding citizens expect to go about their business more or less free from the eyes of the state. Yet Congress sidestepped real debate and buried this transforming (not to mention unfunded) federal requirement in a military spending bill that was guaranteed to pass.

If our elected representatives are going to surrender a chunk of our basic liberties, they at least ought to be straightforward about what they're doing and engage in a thorough debate.

Fortunately, there is a path back from the brink, and this state is poised to lead the way. The New Hampshire House has already passed a bill that would keep the state out of the Real ID program. This morning the Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee should urge the Senate to do the same.

Yes, passing the bill will mean saying no to $3 million the federal government is offering to get New Hampshire to be a Real ID pilot state. But it's sucker's money -compliance would cost many millions more - and other states will take note if New Hampshire turns down the bribe. When more states also bow out, Congress will be forced to go back to the drawing board.

For now the law says that by 2008 all states must issue a uniform driver's license, capturing in a bar code, magnetic strip or computer chip a wealth of personal information. Each state must create a database storing that information and electronic images of the supporting documents used by the people applying for licenses.

All the databases are to be linked, and federal agencies won't be allowed to accept a non-Real ID license for any official purpose, defined as "accessing federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the secretary [of homeland security] shall determine."

One of New Hampshire's U.S. senators smartly opposed this overreach from the start. John Sununu was one of four senators, two Republican and two Democratic, who warned in an April 2005 letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist that "the Real ID Act will not enhance our safety." (Sununu also called for a separate, open debate.)

By contrast, U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg praised Real ID in a letter last week to state Sen. Jack Barnes, who's on the committee that votes today. Gregg said the ID cards "will help combat terrorism"and make it harder for illegal aliens to enter the country.

Barnes said yesterday he was unsure how he would vote. He took seriously the need for national security measures, even unpleasant ones, but made clear he didn't like the feds telling the state what to do. He said he hoped there was still time to get more information.

There is, Senator. And the best way to get such information is for Congress to have an honest debate on whether a national ID card is right for America. To make it happen, New Hampshire must say no to Real ID.

------ End of article

Monitor editorial