Saying no to REAL ID

Civil liberties and privacy issues versus national security and federal accessibility are at the heart of a bill vetoed last year by the governor, but supporters hope to put on his desk once again.

Rep. Carlos Mariani (DFL-St. Paul) sponsors HF988, which would prevent the Department of Public Safety from taking any steps to implement or plan for implementation of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

The House Public Safety Policy and Oversight Committee approved the bill March 24 and sent it to the House Civil Justice Committee. A companion, SF738, sponsored by Sen. Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove), awaits action by the Senate Transportation Committee.

A recommendation by the 9/11 Commission, the act’s goal is to create uniform standards for documents such as driver’s licenses and state identification cards, making them harder to forge, and thereby reducing identity fraud and tightening immigration standards.

Residents of states that do not adopt the federal standards by the end of this year would not be able to use their license or identification cards for federal purposes, such as boarding commercial aircraft or entering a federal building.

Charles Samuelson, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the act is unconstitutional. “It burns American’s right to travel, which has been recognized as a right by the U.S. Supreme Court under the First Amendment.”

Mariani expressed concern with the state giving large amounts of personal data to the federal government. “We’d be handing over to legislators in Washington D.C. to make important decisions relative to our data privacy issues that arise in terms of collecting information on our driver’s license,” he said. “We want these rights reserved for the states.”

In an effort to compromise after vetoing the 2008 bill, Gov. Tim Pawlenty issued an executive order that would prevent state compliance before June 1, 2009, unless legislative approval is first given. He hoped the time would allow all sides to reach a compromise on issues such as federal funding, privacy and state control.