As Congress has recessed for the month of August, Representatives and Senators have been holding "town hall"-style meetings to discuss various issues, health care reform chief among them.  One Houston-area Congressman, Democrat Gene Green, has found the going especially difficult, resulting in the following post on his web site:

Town hall meetings are one of my favorite ways to communicate with constituents. I have held hundreds during my years of service in Congress and always welcomed everyone to attend. Unfortunately, due to a coordinated effort to disrupt our town hall meetings, we will be restricting further attendance to residents of the 29th Congressional District and verifying residency by requiring photo identification.

Note:  the emphasis is included in the original posting.

Now I don't dispute that Rep. Green has the right to restrict participation in his own "town hall" meetings.  If nothing else, there are venue-related safety restrictions on building occupancy.  If a particular citizen is being represented by a Congressman not holding "town hall" meetings, then it is a valid issue to discuss with that particular member of Congress (and perhaps even an issue for a campaign challenge).

However, in requiring a photo ID showing that a meeting participant is actually a member of Rep. Green's district, and not part of a "coordinated effort to disrupt", Mr. Green is violating his own principle.  Mr. Green was a co-sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 247 in 2005, the title of which was:

Expressing the sense of Congress that a requirement that United States citizens obtain photo identification cards before being able to vote has not been shown to ensure ballot integrity and places an undue burden on the legitimate voting rights of citizens.

Ironic, isn't it?  Congressman Green has a greater fear of a "coordinated effort to disrupt" his meetings than he does one that would disrupt the actual vote, that he supports more stringent identification requirements for participation in a discussion of the issues than he does for participation in actual elections.

Do you suppose Mr. Green recognizes that irony?