
DHS continues to threaten states that resist the REAL-ID Act - CapitalistCartr
https://papersplease.org/wp/2016/10/20/dhs-continues-to-threaten-states-that-resist-the-real-id-act/
======
jdp23
REAL-ID is effectively a national ID card. Organizations like EFF and ACLU
have been opposed to REAL-ID on privacy and civil liberties grounds since it
was passed in 2005. Libertarian groups like Cato also highlight that it's a
huge unfunded mandate on the states. Overall, resistance to REAL-ID has been
one of the most effective multipartisan civil liberties efforts - a lot to
learn from it.

Here's EFF's page: [https://www.eff.org/issues/real-
id](https://www.eff.org/issues/real-id)

And Cato's most recent commentary, by Jim Harper:
[http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-id-
decision...](http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-id-decisions)

~~~
akytt
So basically this movement is saying that it is OK to have a massive identity
theft problem, insecure banking and inefficient government services if that
means no national id card? Even though most big public and private
organisations have 95+% accurate full profiles of all the citizens? Data theft
and privacy violation are rampant because data is duplicated. Data is
duplicated because it can't be shared. Data can't be shared because movements
like this opposing it because privacy issues are rampant. Bump.

------
cmurf
DHS should just require passports or passport cards ($30) for domestic air
travel and stop pestering the states. If states want to opt in to some program
that provides the same information to the Feds as a passport, but in the form
of state ID including a driver's license, then DHS can additionally accept
those.

Set the Federal standard, and provide Federal ID that meets the standard,
publish the standard so states can conform - and just leave it at that.

~~~
greglindahl
Actually, that's the system we have. The Federal ID that's not a passport is
called the "Passport Card". The conforming state ID is REAL-ID. Implementation
is blocked because many states are playing "chicken" with the federal
government.

------
jerryatrick
Does this mean we can use them to verify voting and thus the integrity of our
elections?

~~~
Alupis
In all seriousness, I too think it's silly we do not ID folks before voting.

However, one of the common hurdles seems to be that ID's are not free, as-in
folks need to pay to get government issued ID (which is crazy, if you think
about it. you don't even own your ID - the issuing state does) and this may
negatively impact our poorest population's ability to participate in
elections.

Why don't we issue government ID's for free (paid via taxes, naturally), and
then ID folks at the voting booth? Only citizens have the right to vote, why
not protect that right?

~~~
wlesieutre
It's not even that you have to pay a couple of bucks for an ID, it's that you
have to get to a DMV, wait in line for five hours (true story, thanks
Connecticut), and then get sent home because you didn't bring 8 pieces of mail
sent to your previous 3 addresses, and the raised seal on your birth
certificate (if you even have your birth certificate) was the wrong diameter
(not quite true story, exaggerated for dramatic effect).

If my mom hadn't been there to very vocally insist that yes, that _is_ the
original birth certificate that the hospital issued after I was born, and yes
she would know because she was there, then I would've had an awfully hard time
getting a photo ID.

Coupled with DMV closures that (depending on who you ask) were targeted along
racial lines, these little cards that we take for granted can be damn near
impossible for some citizens to get.

[https://thinkprogress.org/after-alabama-enforces-voter-id-
sh...](https://thinkprogress.org/after-alabama-enforces-voter-id-shuts-down-
dmvs-in-black-communities-lawmaker-wants-
investigation-94de2c4a5dd9?gi=d3e68630a3e2)

~~~
CWuestefeld
Isn't that mostly an argument to fix broken bureaucracies around IDs?

And they are broken, to be sure. I recently moved away from NJ, but when I was
there, renewing my driver's license was a real chore. Their antiquated
computer system can't hold a string as long as "Christopher", so they
abbreviate on my DL. That becomes a problem at renewal time, because my DL
does not match my other IDs, so I always must supply my birth certificate, and
jump through other hoops.

That system is broken, and needs fixing irrespective of voting rights.

------
scient
The article is titled to kind of make it sound like its a bad thing, when its
not. The discrepancy in different IDs and how different states issue them and
whats accepted is ridiculous.

~~~
the_trapper
That's called state's rights and there are various legitimate reasons for the
individual states to have that sort of autonomy. It is also the right of DHS
to not accept ID cards that it does not feel comfortable accepting.

I wouldn't say that either side is particularly wrong in its actions.

~~~
serge2k
> there are various legitimate reasons for the individual states to have that
> sort of autonomy

People say that about a lot of things, but so much of the time the reasoning
isn't clear to me.

Why does Montana need a different style of ID than Washington?

A separate system, that I could understand. Not necessarily agree with, but
understand.

~~~
Spooky23
Lots of reasons. Immigration affairs aren't a state matter, regulating the
roadways is.

So a state like New York that has lots of immigrants, whose status may or may
not be legal has a compelling public need to license drivers, as licensure is
required for things like liability insurance coverage.

A place like Montana may find that some of the consequences of higher levels
of identity proofing are difficult or onerous because it's a huge state with
few people and many Indian Reservations with other complications.

