The U.S. Department of Homeland Security last month finalized a new rule requiring "minimum security standards" for state-issued driver licenses and identification cards. After May 11, citizens of states that do not take steps to comply will not be able to use their driver licenses for certain official purposes, including boarding commercial aircraft, according to DHS.
Some states already have officially opposed the program, while privacy advocates and others have rejected the principles behind Real ID, which some view as a pseudo national ID program--an oft-maligned concept. But most U.S. travelers are unlikely to be affected, since their states have signaled an intent to comply, which generally has meant a request for an extension to the May 11 deadline, according to a DHS spokesperson.
Mandated by Congress, the Real ID Act of 2005 stems from findings by the 9/11 Commission, which said that identification sources at airport boarding gates "are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists." Like other DHS travel security programs, Real ID has sparked controversy related to the costs states would face, the logistics of the program and privacy concerns.
"If a particular state were to say, 'We opt out; we're not going to participate at all,' then the law is very clear: After May of this year, that state's driver licenses will no longer be acceptable as a form of federal identification for getting on an airplane or getting into a federal building," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff during a January news conference. "That means people from that state would have to come up with a different form of identification, or they might find themselves in secondary [screening]. So it's going to be inconvenient. There's no question the law creates a very powerful incentive for states getting onboard with this process."
Yet, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and South Carolina officially have rejected the program.
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford in his Jan. 16 state of the state address described Real ID as "heavy-handed" federal legislation.
In accepting an award from the Maine Civil Liberties Union last month for his work in opposing Real ID, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap called the program a "poorly thought-out policy that fails to achieve its supposed primary goal of improving national security, while at the same time creating enormous concerns about the privacy of all Americans. ... Even if the legislature and I were wrong--even if personal privacy was not permanently thrown off, subject to the random scrutiny of unknown officials for unknown purposes--Real ID would not take a single step forward in the defense of any American against a determined act of terror."
Alaska, Arizona and Maryland currently are among those considering legislation to either disapprove or prevent funding for Real ID. According to the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, a total of 16 states--in addition to the five that officially have rejected the program--plus the District of Columbia have "yet to agree" with DHS, including Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia.
Given such opposition, ACTE called for a one-year delay on the initial implementation of Real ID. "Business travelers from at least five states are going to be penalized because their locally elected officials have passed legislation prohibiting participation in this program," said ACTE executive director Susan Gurley. "Divisive activity by pressuring states into accepting a mandate at the risk of inconveniencing travelers is not conducive to the best policy-making."
Gurley suggested that the Real ID program could lead to "confusion on the part of DHS personnel who must determine at a glance" which state licenses remain valid.
The National Business Travel Association also said that the opposing hard lines taken by DHS and resisting states are "extremely concerning," according to a statement by NBTA president Kevin Maguire. "No citizen should be denied a fundamental right to travel because of a legal battle between their state and the federal government."
Maguire, though, also said that the "flexibility" afforded states in their implementation of Real ID, as detailed in the final DHS rule, "is promising."
Some states supporting the new rules already have requested extensions; others seeking extensions must submit a request to DHS no later than March 31. To confirm that their driver licenses will suffice as proper identification at the airport after May 11, travelers should contact their state legislature or governor's office, a DHS spokesperson said.
"For an extra $8 per license [on average], Real ID will give law enforcement and security officials a powerful advantage against falsified documents," Chertoff said, "and it will bring some peace of mind to citizens wanting to protect their identity from theft by a criminal or illegal alien."
Real ID-compliant licenses include full legal name, date of birth, gender, license number, residential address, digital photograph, signature, "common machine-readable technology," a Real ID security marking and "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting or duplication." Chertoff said that while some states use fingerprints for ID cards, such biometrics are not required for Real ID. "The digital features of the license we're talking about, coupled with the embedded security features, are sufficient to do the trick," he said. "Also, frankly, fingerprint readers are not in sufficiently widespread use that having a fingerprint biometric would necessarily help very much."
For those states that comply, the requirement for replacing all licenses with Real ID-compliant cards won't take effect for years. In the interim, citizens of those states can continue using their current driver licenses at airports. Once a state signals its intent to comply, it will have to achieve certain implementation milestones to remain in compliance. For those that do, full replacement of all current driver licenses with Real ID-compliant ones is not required until Dec. 1, 2014 (for citizens born after Dec. 1, 1964) and Dec. 1, 2017 (for those born before Dec. 1, 1964). DHS settled on the ultimate two-stage deadline to ease the burden on states.
In addition to several states, other parties voiced opposition. "Rather than saddling the states and the American people with this misfortune of a law until 2018 and beyond, it should be repealed and replaced with a clean, simple and vigorous new driver license security law that does not create a national ID," according to a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union.
Addressing privacy concerns, Chertoff said there would be no new national database housing information from the Real ID program, and states would not be required to collect any additional information from applicants beyond what is required today. "The time has come to bite the bullet and get the kind of secure identification I am convinced the American public wants to have," he said. "We have to get over the idea that every time we do something at the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. government it automatically is a nefarious, evil thing."
In lieu of Real ID-compliant driver licenses, U.S. citizens can use other forms of ID at airports. They will include:
- A valid passport.
- "Enhanced driver licenses," which are designed for use at land and sea border crossings. They are machine-readable and equipped with radio frequency identification chips. The state of Washington began issuing them last month.
- The new Pass Card, which is a "limited-use," wallet-size ID card also designed for land and sea border crossings. The U.S. Department of State began accepting applications this month. The first Pass Cards will be issued in the fall.
- A Nexus card. The Nexus program facilitates cross-border travel between the United States and Canada.
"The last thing I want to do is punish citizens of a state who would love to have a Real ID driver license and can't get one because the state has voted to opt out of the program," Chertoff said. "So there will be other options. I'm going to make a prediction that the public demand for having secure identification is going to be overwhelming. And we'll try to work with people whose states have opted out. But in the end, the rule is the rule. It was passed by Congress, it was enacted into the law of the land, and I'm obliged to enforce it."