Advertisement
6 states defy law requiring ID cards
www.usatoday.com/news/nati...ards_N.htm
Lawmakers in Maine, Montana, New Hampshire,
Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington say
new standards would be expensive to implement
and result in a national ID card that compromises
privacy.
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
June 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - Six state legislatures are defying a federal law requiring new
driver's licenses that aim to prevent identity theft, fraud and terrorism.
The states have passed laws in the past two months, saying the federal law
has a steep cost and invades privacy by requiring 240 million Americans to
get highly secure licenses by 2013. The 9/11 Commission urged the first
standards for licenses to stop fraud and terrorists such as the Sept. 11
hijackers, who lied on residency statements to get licenses and state IDs.
Lawmakers in Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina and
Washington say new standards would be expensive to implement and result in a
national ID card that compromises privacy. The National Conference of State
Legislatures estimates that it will cost states more than $11 billion.
State resistance has drawn criticism from the Homeland Security Department.
"I cannot imagine a state official anywhere that would want to have to
testify before Congress about . how their non-compliant licenses contributed
to a terrorist attack," department spokesman Russ Knocke said.
Knocke said the federal government can't force states to comply. But he said
each state's residents are likely to bring pressure on their local
governments when they learn they'll be barred from boarding airplanes
because their state's licenses don't meet federal standards.
Airline passengers can use other government photo identification, such as
passports and military IDs.
Some lawmakers say any inconvenience is outweighed by the cost and potential
privacy invasion for each state to create a photo database of license
holders.
"The people of New Hampshire are adamantly opposed to any kind of
'papers-please' society reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia,"
said Neal Kurk, a Republican state representative from New Hampshire. "This
is another effort of the federal government to keep track of all its
citizens."
The federal law requires everyone to renew licenses by 2013 with documents
showing their Social Security number and home address, and that they are in
the USA legally. State Sen. Larry Martin, a Republican from South Carolina,
said the law will overwhelm states by requiring agencies to verify documents
such as birth certificates.
The defiance by six states could force Congress to reconsider the law, said
Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union. "You can't have a
national ID card if the residents of six states won't have one," Steinhardt
said.
Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
www.usatoday.com/news/nati...ards_N.htm
Lawmakers in Maine, Montana, New Hampshire,
Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington say
new standards would be expensive to implement
and result in a national ID card that compromises
privacy.
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
June 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - Six state legislatures are defying a federal law requiring new
driver's licenses that aim to prevent identity theft, fraud and terrorism.
The states have passed laws in the past two months, saying the federal law
has a steep cost and invades privacy by requiring 240 million Americans to
get highly secure licenses by 2013. The 9/11 Commission urged the first
standards for licenses to stop fraud and terrorists such as the Sept. 11
hijackers, who lied on residency statements to get licenses and state IDs.
Lawmakers in Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina and
Washington say new standards would be expensive to implement and result in a
national ID card that compromises privacy. The National Conference of State
Legislatures estimates that it will cost states more than $11 billion.
State resistance has drawn criticism from the Homeland Security Department.
"I cannot imagine a state official anywhere that would want to have to
testify before Congress about . how their non-compliant licenses contributed
to a terrorist attack," department spokesman Russ Knocke said.
Knocke said the federal government can't force states to comply. But he said
each state's residents are likely to bring pressure on their local
governments when they learn they'll be barred from boarding airplanes
because their state's licenses don't meet federal standards.
Airline passengers can use other government photo identification, such as
passports and military IDs.
Some lawmakers say any inconvenience is outweighed by the cost and potential
privacy invasion for each state to create a photo database of license
holders.
"The people of New Hampshire are adamantly opposed to any kind of
'papers-please' society reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia,"
said Neal Kurk, a Republican state representative from New Hampshire. "This
is another effort of the federal government to keep track of all its
citizens."
The federal law requires everyone to renew licenses by 2013 with documents
showing their Social Security number and home address, and that they are in
the USA legally. State Sen. Larry Martin, a Republican from South Carolina,
said the law will overwhelm states by requiring agencies to verify documents
such as birth certificates.
The defiance by six states could force Congress to reconsider the law, said
Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union. "You can't have a
national ID card if the residents of six states won't have one," Steinhardt
said.
Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: We're up to six states now
Sun, June 24, 2007 - 10:38 PMImpressive...but you are not a Jedi yet.
-
Unsu...
Re: We're up to six states now
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 11:53 AMThat's good news....only 44 more states to go! -
-
Re: We're up to six states now
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 12:51 PMHey 12% is a good start. -
-
Re: We're up to six states now
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 10:16 PMWhat matters is the level of ambiguity in the 'nay' resolutions. It has been pointed out that simply withholding financial means to implement does not equate to constitutional objectives and civil liberties-based languege. Washington State, for example, could do with a bit more ferociousness......but, then...that's always been the case..:) -
-
Re: We're up to six states now
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 6:44 AMThat would be up to their citizens. -
-
Re: We're up to six states now
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 9:12 AMHalf of these are red states. . .that is encouraging too. . . -
-
Re: We're up to six states now
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 7:28 PM>>Half of these are red states. . .that is encouraging too. . .
Privacy is one of those weird birds -- conservatives and liberals frequently join forces over legislation that is anti-privacy, so it's really not that surprising that some red states are against it.
But it's still good!!!!! :)
-
-
-
-
-