REAL IDStates continue to fight REAL ID

The battle against the REAL ID act rages on as states continue to oppose implementing REAL ID standards.

The law, passed in 2005, establishes federal standards for state driver’s licenses. IDs that do not comply with these standards would be invalid when used for official purposes like boarding an airplane, opening a bank account, or entering a federal building.

Senator Patrick Leah (D–Vermont), a fierce critic of the program, has charged that the law would “effectively create a national ID card.”

In addition to privacy concerns, many have balked at the high cost and bureaucratic nightmares of implementing such standards.

DHS estimates that it could cost an estimated $23.1 billion over ten years to implement and states have rebelled against the additional bureaucratic procedures that they must go through to comply to new federal standards.

Under the law states would have to remake their driver’s licenses, restructure their computer systems, and create new intra-state data sharing networks. As a result, nearly half of the states in the country have enacted anti-Real ID bills including Maine, Alaska, South Carolina, Arizona, and Oklahoma.

The law mandated that states comply with new federal ID standards by 11 May 2008, but with so many states refusing to cooperate, DHS issued a reprieve to states. Earlier this month, DHS issued its third reprieve giving states an additional twenty-one months to observe the law.

States would now have until 15 January 2013 to be in full compliance with federal ID standards. But with the recent economic downturn and many states facing budget shortfalls, many states are struggling with the costs of implementing REAL ID standards.

In extending the deadline, an official DHS statement read, “Implementation of Real ID involves a significant financial investment, and, despite the receipt of substantial federal grant funds, a number of states are struggling to come up with the resources necessary to meet the full compliance deadline in these times of budget austerity.”

Representative Darrell Issa (R – California), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, blasted the DHS decision stating, “In light of the Texas terror plot, it’s inconceivable that the Obama administration would further delay the implementation of Real ID and not address this glaring vulnerability for another 21 months.”

In February a Texas man was arrested for trying to use weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States. He had allegedly sought multiple drivers’ licenses to avoid being caught.

“We have a situation where we know we can take meaningful action to make the American people safer, yet for some reason, the president wants to delay action. I can’t for the life of me understand why,” Issa said.

In a statement, the National Governors Association (NGA) embraced the DHS decision.

“Protecting the security and integrity of drivers’ license and state identification cards is a top priority of the nation’s governors’ however Real ID presents significant operational and fiscal challenges to states. Governors have long said that Real ID, in its current form, is unworkable. That has not changed.”

NGA added, “Extending the compliance deadline allows states and the federal government more time to find solutions that work. Arbitrary deadlines that only keep people from boarding an airplane do not make the impossible possible.”

In Iowa, a House committee recently passed anti-Real ID legislation by a 22-1 vote. The bill would prohibit any agency from requiring a REAL ID to be shown, collected, or used in Iowa.

Some say that many of the states’ anti- Real ID legislation go too far.

William Jackson writes in Government Computer News, “Although concerns about privacy are understandable, bills introduced in New Hampshire and Oklahoma would throw out the baby with the bathwater by prohibiting the use, respectively, of all biometrics and of Radio Frequency ID.”

He continues, “The bills’ authors show a fundamental lack of understanding about biometrics and RFID, and their legislation is at best unnecessary and at worst disruptive and unenforceable.”