I missed this in Friday's Washington Post but stupidity has returned to the paper's editorial page. Early Friday I wrote about how back in December, Democrats and Republicans had come to an agreement on election reform, but that this week Democrats backed out by attempting to water down a very basic provision to prevent voter fraud. The requirements are not cumbersome. Voting would still be easier than applying for a department store credit card.

The editorial is entitled "Fixing the Vote." Unfortunately it would do nothing of the sort.

The Schumer amendment fixes an anti-fraud provision in the election bill. The provision says that new voters, including those who have moved to a different county, must verify their identity by showing a photo ID, a utility bill or some other official document with their address on it. This provision may have the good effect of preventing some fraud. But it also may disqualify voters with no driver's license and no utility bills in their own name -- and this group of potentially disqualified voters is much bigger than the likely number of fraudulent ballots.

Some 3 million disabled people are thought not to have driver's licenses or other qualifying picture IDs, and many of them may live in homes where the utility bills go to some other member of the household. Poor people without cars and settled homes may be disenfranchised too. The anti-fraud provision also threatens the vote-by-mail systems in Oregon, Washington and Colorado. It would require voters to photocopy proof of identity and send it in along with the ballot. But some voters live out of convenient range of photocopiers. Others may be put off by the sheer hassle.

The Schumer amendment would fix this danger by allowing states to accept other types of proof of identity -- for example, a signature.

It fixes an anti-fraud provision? No, it eviscerates the anti-fraud provision. If you don't have a drivers license, California (and I would suspect most other states) offer a state ID card. If you're disabled and the utility bills are in someone else's name, wouldn't the disability check have an address on it? It's just not credible that someone would be unable to come up with some proof of ID.

And the last line is the most stupid thing I've heard in the past week. A signature as proof of identity? If I sign my name "Chuck Schumer" is that proof that I'm the senior senator from New York?