The federal Real ID Act of 2005 has had a rocky road. When it was first proposed by Sen. James Sensenbrenner it was overwhelmingly rejected. In order to get the bill passed, Sensenbrenner struck a deal with other legislators that allowed him to attach it to a war funding bill. And since nobody in Congress has the backbone to oppose the move by voting against the bill, it passed. The law sets standards for driver’s licenses that are issued by the states. It does not however provide funding to the states to pay for implementing these standards. Between the financial considerations and the privacy issues created by the law, getting the states to comply has been much like spitting into the wind.
By the beginning of last week, eleven states had passed laws to hold up implementation of Real ID; most of them because of funding issues. In the case of Montana, the state has made it illegal for the state DMV to comply with the law even if the federal government pays for them to do so. Late last week, both Nevada and Oregon struck additional blows at the law.
The Oregon State Legislature passed two laws that forbid the state from doing any more to implement Real ID without federal funding. Legislators are essentially telling Washington, DC, “If you want us to comply, you can pay for it yourself.”
Nevada was not quite as bold. Legislators there were actually in the process of considering a bill that would have required the state to comply with Real ID. The bill passed out of committee last week, but it was never brought to the floor for a vote. Since the state legislature has now adjourned for this session, the bill essentially died. The only way that it can be resurrected is if it is re-proposed once the next legislative session begins.
The issues surrounding Real ID are complex and controversial. A lot of people believe that the law brings with it a variety of Orwellian problems.
As previously mentioned, Real ID would set standards for state driver’s licenses. These standards would make licenses more difficult to counterfeit. But the law doesn’t end there. It would establish a system in which law enforcement around the country could then search through those driver’s licenses; essentially establishing a national database of drivers and those holding state ID cards. For all practical purposes it would turn these documents into a national ID card.
The way that Real ID was written, it provided an out-clause to the states. The law specifically says that the states cannot be forced to comply with it. But there are penalties to the residents of states that are not in compliance. Those with driver’s licenses from non-compliant states will not be allowed to enter a federal building or board a flight unless they obtain a US Passport. They won’t be able to apply for federal benefits either.
The federal government has tried a variety of ways to sell Real ID to the states and to the people. But it is a hard sell. For instance, the government has said that it will help prevent terrorism because documents will be much more difficult to forge. But it needs to be pointed out that the 9/11 terrorists had actual government IDs in their possession at the time they committed their crimes. There is no reason to believe that Real ID would have changed this.
On the other hand, Real ID is another way for the government to monitor law abiding citizens. What purpose could this possibly serve? Certainly from the standpoint of the average person, Real ID harms privacy without giving anything of value in return.
The problem for the federal government is that if any states with large populations simply say that they will not comply with the act, then the law will probably become unenforceable. The federal government recognizes that and has already extended the implementation data for Real ID once; to 2011. If states don’t start working to comply soon, that date is likely to slip again. In truth, the law should be repealed.
