The ACLU of Nevada is thrilled to report that the bill to bring Nevada in line with the federal REAL ID Act is dead. Although the Senate voted 12 to 9 on the bill on early Monday, it was not voted on by the Assembly before its adjournment.
The ACLU lobbied hard against the REAL ID Bill for the following reasons:
- NEVADA RESOLUTION URGED REPEAL Our 2007 legislature passed AJR6, urging Congress to repeal REAL ID.
- NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO NEVADA The private association planned to keep and maintain the database is not bound by the Privacy Act or the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act.
- GROUNDSWELL OF STATE OPPOSITION Eleven states, including Montana, Arizona, and Idaho, have enacted statutes opting out of the program entirely.
- FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CONSIDERING REPEAL The Heritage Foundation reports that draft legislation repealing REAL ID is circulating in Washington (5/12/09, http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/12/is-this-for-real/).
- PRIVACY INTRUSIONS No limitations, guidelines, or security plan has been set for the use, storage, and sharing of the personal information REAL ID would capture.
- UNFUNDED MANDATE Less than 10% of the $1 billion in start-up funds needed to implement REAL ID has been budgeted for by the federal government.
- OVERWHELMING COST In 2007, the legislature estimated that implementing REAL ID came with a $30 million price tag for two years; current estimates are still in multiple millions of dollars.
- REENROLLMENT & TRAINING Nevada DMVs would need to revamp how applications for licenses and renewals are handled, requiring new extensive training as well as additional staff and equipment.
- INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERHAULS Sweeping changes are needed to Nevada driver’s licenses and administration systems to capture REAL ID’s uniform data elements.
- CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS A REAL ID will be needed to enter federal buildings, creating problems for due process and the right to petition government officials.
- UNFIXABLE: The ACLU believes that REAL ID cannot be fixed. Nevada should not be forced to enact a program– at a massive cost– that fails to serve the state’s interests