Real ID Act and States’ Opposition
Samuels International Associates, Inc.
There are many instances when one has to show his/her picture ID in the United States. From buying a bottle of beer to entering a federal building to boarding an airplane, one has to provide a valid photo ID on a regular basis. Despite this wide reliance of ID, no single national ID system exists in the United States. Instead, a driver’s license with a photo and a date of birth is widely accepted, making the driver’s license a de facto national ID. For those who don’t drive, all 50 states provide a non-driver’s license too.
In the United States, the federal government neither issues nor manages a driver’s license. It falls under state jurisdiction and each state government has its own rules regarding issuance of licenses. For example, some states require proof of one’s legal status in the United States while in other states an undocumented immigrant can obtain a driver’s license. Virginia, which has one of the most stringent rules in the country, requires as many as five different documents, including proof of legal status, while Nebraska requires only one document with one’s name and date of birth (Table1). Despite these huge differences in issuance of driver’s licenses among states, all drivers’ licenses are treated as being equally reliable and valid ID.
Table1: Documents requirements in Nebraska and Virginia
| Nebraska | Virginia |
|---|---|
|
|
Before the Real ID
Creating a national ID system has been debated several times over in the course of various national security-related discussions. However, when it comes to defending “democracy, civil liberty and freedom” from governmental intervention, Americans feel strong about it and the idea of a national ID has met strong oppositions, given that it is regarded as an invasion of privacy. In fact, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, Congress specifically added a clause to prohibit the Department from creating such an ID.
After 9/11, there was renewed interest in creating a national ID system. Proponents argued that the DHS was created in response to 9/11, and current system, where undocumented immigrants could obtain a valid license and then switch to another state’s license would compromise national security. Thus they argue that there should instead be a stricter national standard for issuing a license. They also argue that driver’s data should be shareable and managed centrally to prevent criminals who have committed a crime in one state from obtaining a new license in a different state. All the 9/11 terrorists had boarded their airplanes with either driver’s licenses or state issued IDs and some of them were fraudulent. The 9/11 Commission pointed out that the U.S. needed stricter national standard for driver’s licenses. In turn, Congress passed the Real ID Act in November 2005 to improve the reliability of driver’s licenses.
The Real ID Act does not take away states’ rights to issue a license but states have to adopt a national standard and build a database that can be shared with, both, the federal government and other states. If a state decides not to adopt the Real ID Act, driver’s licenses issued by that state would not be accepted either at airport security or at federal facilities.
Opposition to the Real ID expands
It had seemed that the Real ID Act would lead to the creation of the first American national ID, but as the deadline has approached, several states have started to oppose the adoption of this law. State legislatures in Maine, Idaho, Arkansas and Washington have already decided not to adopt the Real ID Act. According to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 25 other states, as of April 2007, also are debating whether to adopt the Act (Fig1).
Fig1: Anti-Real-ID Legislation or Resolutions as Enacted in the States
Why are so many states opposed or considering not adopting the Real ID system even though the law has been passed by the Congress?
One of the major reasons is the heavy burden states will have to bear in complying with the law. First, as the number of minimum documents increases, states have to handle more paper work. These documents include federally issued ID with date of birth, evidence of social security number, proof of legal residence in the U.S., etc. Besides, states have to check each issuing agency to verify that these documents are real. These add to the already existing burden on states - but this is just the beginning. States also have to issue driver’s licenses in common machine-readable format to prevent fraud; they need to create a database which securely stores personal data and which can share data with other states and federal government entities; and, further, they have to pay for FBI background checks of state employees who manage the database. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that the total cost for states would be $11 billion over 10 years while federal assistance to be provided is estimated to be to the tune of only $40 million.
Another reason for opposition relates to the effectiveness of the Real ID system. States are skeptical whether the Real ID will in fact be secure enough to justify all the effort and expenses - especially given that some of the 9/11 hijackers boarded their airplanes with valid passports, which are also valid ID for all travel, and hence would not have been impacted or prevented by implementation of the Real ID Act. States also have concerns related to the security of personal information. Jim Harper of Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, has pointed out that a centralized database linked to driver’s licenses would increase the risks for the data. In fact, there have been many cases where the federal government has lost personal data. For example, the Internal Revenue Service has lost 500 notebook computers over the last three years and a database containing 2.6 million people’s information was stolen from the Department of Veteran’s Affairs last year.
Future of the Real ID Act
The future of the Real ID Act is uncertain. Unless all states comply with the law, it would not be effective as a national ID system. At the same time, currently four states have already decided not to comply and many others are considering not adopting the act. Additionally, two bills to repeal the Real ID Act and one bill to postpone the deadline to compromise have been introduced in Congress. The Homeland Security Department, meantime, is going to hold a public hearing to discuss the matter with state officials in May, and the meeting is due to take place in California where people are most sensitive to issues related to protecting civil liberties. But unless the above mentioned problems - money and security - are resolved, it might be difficult to change minds.
