In a controversial move that has sparked debate across the country, several states have recently begun issuing driver’s licenses which explicitly state “not for federal identification” on them. This change comes as a response to the REAL ID Act, a federal law enacted in 2005 that establishes minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.
The REAL ID Act was passed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with the goal of enhancing security measures and preventing identity theft and fraud. Under the law, states must follow specific guidelines for issuing driver’s licenses and identification cards if they are to be accepted for “official purposes” by federal agencies, including boarding domestic flights and entering federal buildings.
However, some states have pushed back against the REAL ID Act, citing concerns about privacy and federal overreach. These states argue that it is not the government’s role to dictate how they issue driver’s licenses and that the federal government should not have the authority to mandate how states manage their own identification processes.
One such state is New Hampshire, which recently implemented a new design for its driver’s licenses that includes the “not for federal identification” disclaimer. Governor Chris Sununu, a vocal critic of the REAL ID Act, defended the decision, stating that it was important for the state to assert its independence and protect the privacy rights of its residents.
“We believe in the individual liberties of our citizens, and we will not bow down to federal pressure to comply with a law that we believe infringes on those liberties,” Sununu said in a press conference announcing the new driver’s license design.
Other states, including Montana and Maine, have also taken similar steps to assert their sovereignty over their driver’s license issuance processes. In Montana, Governor Greg Gianforte recently signed a bill into law that prohibits the state from implementing the REAL ID Act, effectively making it impossible for residents to obtain a compliant driver’s license.
Critics of the “not for federal identification” designation argue that it could create confusion and inconvenience for residents who need to use their driver’s licenses for federal purposes. They worry that individuals may face obstacles when attempting to board flights or enter federal buildings with a non-compliant license.
However, supporters of the designation argue that it is a necessary step to protect privacy and push back against federal encroachment on state authority. They argue that states have the right to determine how they issue identification cards and that residents should not be compelled to comply with a federal mandate that they believe violates their rights.
As the debate over the REAL ID Act continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how other states will respond to the federal requirements and whether more states will follow in the footsteps of New Hampshire, Montana, and Maine in implementing the “not for federal identification” designation on their driver’s licenses. One thing is clear: the tension between federal and state authority over identification processes is far from resolved.
