The following is an article that appeared in the Winter 2006 issue of MOVE magazine. To order a back copy of this issue or to subscribe contact AAMVA at (703) 522-4200.
Driver Certification Cards: The Pros and Cons
The Real ID Act, signed into law May 2005, imposes the requirement that all states conform to federally required security standards in the issuance of driver’s licenses and identification cards, if these credentials are to be used for federal purposes, such as boarding a plane and getting into federal buildings. These standards include proving lawful presence in the United States. However, Real ID does encompass the fact that some states may still wish to issue credentials to their residents regardless of their lawful or unlawful immigration status.
Under the act, states can issue an alternative driver’s license or ID card that is not in compliance with federal security standards—as long as the card indicates it “may not be accepted by any federal agency for federal identification, or for any other official purpose.”
Move shares perspectives from a jurisdiction currently issuing the card, one who is exploring the option of issuance, and the impact on driver certification card holders.
Utah Issues Driving Privilege Card
By Kim Gibb, Bureau Chief, Records Bureau, Utah Driver License Division
Previous to 2005, the Utah Driver License Division issued two types of documents, the Utah driver’s license (DL) and the Utah state identification (ID) card. In order for an individual to obtain either document, they were required to provide proof of identity and proof of a Social Security Number (SSN). In 1999, a law passed that enabled applicants to obtain a DL or ID card by providing proof of an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) issued by the Internal Revenue Service in lieu of the SSN requirement.
In February 2005, an audit revealed that Utah was being used as a portal to obtain a license by out-of-state individuals, who were not eligible to obtain a DL in their state of residence. It was determined that approximately 58,000 Utah licenses were issued to individuals who presented ITIN documents and were not eligible to obtain a SSN, therefore appearing to be undocumented immigrants. In addition, approximately 3,700 identification cards were issued to ITIN holders. Also as a result of the audit, we became aware that dozens of licenses were issued to individuals who claim to be living at the same address. And, 383 individuals who appeared to be undocumented were also registered to vote through our Motor Voter program.
Senate Bill 227, which became effective March 8, 2005, created a “Driving Privilege Card” that was to be issued to applicants who do not qualify for an SSN. In addition, language was added that prohibits the Driver License Division from issuing a license or driving privilege card to an individual who is not a Utah resident and prohibits governmental entities from accepting the driving privilege card as proof of identity. The driving privilege card issued with proof of ITIN expires on the applicant’s birth date in the first year following the year the driving privilege card was issued or renewed.
Senate Bill 227 essentially identified a separate and distinguishable document to be used as verification of a valid Utah driving privilege for individuals who obtained their driving privilege using an ITIN in lieu of an SSN. In addition, any DL that was issued to an applicant using proof of ITIN prior to the law becoming effective would expire on the applicant’s next birthday after July 1, 2005.
The new law also prohibits the Driver License Division from issuing a Utah state ID card to an individual who does not qualify for an SSN. Any identification card issued to an applicant who provided proof of ITIN in lieu of an SSN expired on July 1, 2005.
House Bill 223, which became effective July 1, 2005, allows for an individual who can provide evidence of legal presence in the United States, and is residing in Utah, to obtain a driving privilege card without obtaining an ITIN card. The applicant is required to provide proof of identity, proof of a Utah residence address, and verification of legal presence, and is issued a driving privilege card with an expiration date that matches the expiration date on the legal presence documents.
The Utah Driver License Division sent notification to holders of DLs and ID cards issued with proof of ITIN to inform them of the changes. More than 74,000 letters were sent to holders of ID cards that would expire July 1, 2005, and 46,000 letters are being sent throughout the year to holders of DLs that would expire on the next birth date following July 1, 2005. Of those 74,000 ID card notices, approximately one-third were returned as undeliverable, and we are experiencing a return rate of approximately 15 percent for the DL notices.
As of December 16, 2005, the Utah Driver License Division has issued 20,578 driving privilege cards.
Oregon Weighs the Option
By Tom McClellan, Manager, Program Services, Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles
Today, Oregon residents can obtain a DL and ID card without proving they are in this country legally. They must satisfy our identity and residency requirements, but state law does not require proof of legal presence as a precursor to issuing a driver’s license or ID card.
This could change given the requirements of the Real ID Act. According to the federal law, people who cannot prove their citizenship or legal visitor status will no longer qualify for a DL or ID card. A special non-compliant card may be issued, but it cannot be used for federal identification or other official purposes. This is equivalent to a driver certification card that indicates driving competence, but may not be accepted to prove one’s identity.
Those in favor of a special driving privilege card say that it is true to the original purpose of a driver’s license. It was never intended to be an identity document, but rather an indicia proving eligibility to drive. People holding these cards have passed vision, knowledge and skills tests. Consequently, they are more likely to comply with state motor vehicle laws, including the purchase of auto insurance. Holders of these cards are more easily identified by law enforcement, and the operation of vehicles is better controlled because DMV keeps records of convictions and sanctions against the driver.
Those opposed say that people in the United States illegally should not be eligible for government services or benefits, including a DL or ID card. They say that offering a special driving privilege card appears to endorse illegal immigration, and will entice illegal aliens to reside in states that offer a special card. Another argument is that businesses may accept the card for identity purposes, even though it is not accepted by federal agencies. Enabling people to open bank accounts, cash checks, or obtain housing is inconsistent with efforts to enforce immigration laws and protect our borders.
Over the past year, Oregon DMV has met several times with representatives of the Latino community. They believe people of color who are in this country legally will face greater scrutiny and disparate treatment as the Real ID Act is implemented. And for those unable to prove their legal status (up to 4 percent of Oregon’s population), many will choose to drive without a license rather than be branded as a non-citizen with a “driving only” card.
In Oregon, opinions are mixed on whether a special driving privilege card should be issued. The Legislature must decide if legal presence will become an eligibility criterion, and if a “driving only” card will be offered to people who cannot satisfy the legal status requirements.
Impacts of Driver Certification Cards
By Philip Vasquez, former Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
In light of the “driver’s safety” aspect of ensuring all drivers are properly credentialed, another aspect that comes into play surrounding driver certification cards is that lawfully present residents may not wish to be subject to such strict federal oversight for privacy reasons. They may demand an alternative driving or identifying credential, not subject to federal oversight. If the states wish to offer an alternative or reduced documentation DL or ID card, they may choose to study the Tennessee and Utah experience and utilize their “best practices” when creating policy and procedure for the issuance of such cards.
In May 2004, the Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen signed into law a new type of driving credential called the “certificate of driving.” The law took effect May 29, 2004, which made the regular DL in Tennessee only available to lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens in Tennessee. All other residents in Tennessee, who wished to obtain a Tennessee driving credential, could apply for the “certificate of driving,” which states on the front in red lettering: “FOR DRIVING PURPOSES ONLY. NOT VALID FOR IDENTIFICATION.”
Governor Bredesen crafted the legislation to prevent all immigrants, regardless of immigration status, the right to a regular Tennessee driver’s license. This occurred two years after Tennessee eliminated its requirement for a SSN to obtain a license, which caused an influx of foreign nationals seeking Tennessee licenses. The Governor’s legislation came at the same time as competing legislation that would have created a complete “lawful presence” requirement in Tennessee. In the past few years, there has been an avalanche of proposed legislation making it increasingly more difficult for people who cannot prove they are lawfully in this country to obtain DLs and ID cards.
The Tennessee Governor took the approach that the political will to eliminate the “undocumented worker” from access to the regular driver’s license was tempered by the reality of their apparent presence in the state and the need to have drivers “certified” for road safety purposes.
The argument in Utah and Tennessee for restricted driving credentials boiled down to the fact that persons unlawfully present in this country drive automobiles. Without these credentials, these drivers would not be able to obtain automobile insurance, and this would create a hardship on those impacted by these uninsured motorists.
Although immigrant rights groups criticized both states when they eliminated the right to a “regular” driver’s license to those unlawfully present in these states, the immigrants themselves, for the most part, are grateful to have the ability to drive without breaking additional laws. This alternative or reduced documentation may prove to be both a safe and politically expedient solution.