South Carolina to Homeland Security on Real ID: Thank You, But No Thank You

Written by Steven Yates

Apr 02, 2008 at 12:00 AM

On March 31, 2008, South Carolina lived up to its reputation as a sometimes-defiant state with leaders capable of thinking independently and standing up for states’ rights (integral to the original meaning of federalism).    Two days ago, Governor Mark Sanford declined to seek an extension from the Department of Homeland Security in order to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005—which (as I’ve noted in previous columns) did not get through Congress on its own merits but riding piggyback on an appropriations bill that was considered must-pass. Last year, a small group of South Carolinians (which included your humble narrator) noticed that states such as Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and several others had either drafted resolutions against the Real ID Act urging Congress to repeal it, or passed state laws declining to participate. We wondered: what was South Carolina doing? Nothing, so far as we could tell. So we took some initiative and acted on our own. We drafted a proposed bill and took it to the South Carolina General Assembly. This involved a few day trips to Columbia last May. Many of our representatives were unfamiliar with Real ID. We changed that. Our bill went through several modifications and was shortened considerably, but was finally passed as S.449. Here was S.449’s crucial passage: “Title 56 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: Section 56-1-85. The State shall not participate in the implementation of the federal Real ID Act. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.” The S.C. General Assembly passed S.449 on June 8, 2007. Five days later, on June 13, Governor Mark Sanford made a special trip to Greenville to sign S.449 into law. All who could attend were on hand at the DMV just off of White Horse Road. Why Greenville? Because, truth be known, most anti-Real ID agitation had come from the Upstate. We never found out what the rest of the state was doing. Aaron Bolinger, then living in Spartanburg, deserves the lion’s share of credit for having spearheaded our efforts. He assembled a single package of information on nearly every aspect, ramification, and point of view one could use to evaluate Real ID—its history, its unconstitutionality, its economic ramifications as determined by professional groups such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, its risk to our privacy, information on what other states were doing, and even theological questions Real ID raises (think of the “Mark of the Beast” in Revelation). Bolinger, who spent several years as a lobbyist working on Capitol Hill, went to Pennsylvania to assist that state’s anti-Real ID effort. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff handed down the final regulations in January. While DHS had clearly grown more flexible in allowing for extensions, many states which had passed resolutions against Real ID got cold feet and asked for extensions—in some cases (Oklahoma is an example) just to buy themselves time. Maine, New Hampshire, Montana and South Carolina continued to hold out. Montana Governor Brian Schweizer sent a letter to other governors stating, “I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with the provisions of REAL ID. If we stand together either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation’s airports and federal courthouses.” He cited concerns over privacy, states’ rights, and the cost of implementation. In Montana’s case, DHS blinked. DHS sent the state an extension it didn’t ask for. Existing Montana drivers licenses will continue to be accepted for federal purposes until Dec. 31, 2009.   This week, Governor Sanford took his stand. South Carolina declines to participate and will not seek an extension. He sent a letter to Michael Chertoff speaking of “what I consider to be grave consequences to the taxpayer, privacy interests, and civil liberties in our country if we continue with Real ID in its present form.” “As you know,” he states at the outset of the letter, “South Carolina has enacted legislation that prevents the state from complying with Real ID, and I am duty bound to comply with the laws of our state.” Governor Sanford goes on to explain his “serious reservations about Real ID…”  He observes, first, what I noted above: “Real ID was never fully debated in Congress. As we both know, Real ID was included as a rider to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief in 2005… Does it make any sense to begin a de facto national ID system without debate?” He argues, second: “at some point someone has got to draw a line in the sand with regard to unfunded federal mandates. Based on the broad array of groups from across the political spectrum that oppose Real ID, if there was ever a federal mandate on which to draw that line in the sand, this seems to be it.” He then discussed Real ID’s price tag. “DHS currently estimates that Real ID will cost $9.9 billion [down from $23 billion]. Over the last 15 years that I have had reason to closely watch things in Washington, three-fold decreases in cost have never been the order of things. Nonetheless, if one leaves aside for a moment what we believe to be implausible assumptions that go with this downward revision, the revised costs are as follows: $3.9 billion cost to the states, $5.8 billion cost to individuals, and $0.2 billion ($200 million) to the federal government and private sector. It seems to me there is something wrong when the federal government imposes the burdens of creating a national ID system on the states—but only pays for two percent of the cost.” Moreover, “Real ID also does not address the cost to verify information across databases.” Sanford observes that the cost of the verification process has gone up. “Before legislation like this goes into effect, I believe transaction costs should be clearly and specifically enumerated.” This assumes that the federal government can afford Real ID. “As you know,” he had said earlier in the letter, “Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and I share very different political philosophies, but I completely agree with her that if the federal government wants something, then the federal government should pay for it….  Unfunded mandates and unspecified costs are relevant to a national security debate and Real ID because of the larger spending problems in Washington.” Our total indebtedness, that is, totals over $50 trillion. “[S]ustainable spending, especially given what is happening to the dollar, is a big part of this. In short, if the federal government thinks a national ID card is necessary, then, after debating its merits, they should pay for it—after determining they can pay for it” (orig. emphasis). Governor Sanford goes on to note, third, that Real ID will “substantially raise wait times at DMV offices across our state, and this will also result in productivity losses that have not been quantified in any DHS estimates.” Indeed, those states fully in compliance can expect long lines; their citizens will wait sometimes for hours, and may have to make return trips if they don’t have the correct documents when they finally get to a clerk. Fourth, “Real ID represents another step against a limited federal government.” The biggest threat to liberty, Sanford argues correctly from history, is “in a central government that is too powerful.” Our federal government had clearly gotten too powerful before the 9/11 attacks, and its power has grown by leaps and bounds since then. Consider: “Real ID upsets the balance of power between the federal government and the states by coercing the states into creating a national ID system for federal purposes. Given its requirement to board a plane or enter a federal building, it would also change the balance of power in something as seemingly insignificant as a visit to a member of Congress. As a former member of the U.S. Congress, I had countless meetings with constituents whose personal details I knew nothing about—and this was a good thing. Their background was not the issue, my stand on a given matter was. The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to assemble and petition their government, and in it there has never been a qualification that said, ‘Only if you have a Real ID card.’ On this, I think it would be best to let the Founding Fathers original work stand.” Along these same lines, the scope of Real ID once implemented could expand at federal will. Sanford quotes from DHS’s final rule handed down in January, that DHS “will continue to consider additional ways in which a Real ID license can or should be used and will implement any changes to the definition of ‘official purpose’ or determinations regarding additional uses for Real ID.” This opens the door to new federal mandates designating having a Real ID before one can open a bank account and eventually even to secure legal employment in this country—a replacement for one’s Social Security card which doesn’t have “machine readable technology” (eventually including an RFID chip)? Fifth, Sanford observes the vulnerabilities of a “national computer network of driver’s license databases that can be accessed by all states and the federal government ...” dangerous because “central depositories have never proven to be great bulwarks in the world of security.” He observes further that “In May 2006, roughly 27 million veterans had personal information compromised when a Department of Veterans Affairs laptop was stolen from an employee. It was later determined that the employee violated agency policies both for storing the information and taking the laptop.” Just recently, all three leading candidates for the presidency—John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama—had their private passport files accessed without official authorization by State Department contract employees. This is hard evidence of how easy it is for anyone with the information-systems know-how. Can you really believe your Real ID information would be safe (particularly from low-paid, low-echelon security bureaucrats who might believe they could profit from stealing and then selling your data)? For such reasons Real ID increases, instead of decreases, the risk of identity theft. Finally, Real ID will not protect Americans from foreign terrorists. “A terrorist could get a passport from a third world country and travel on it instead. Before we spend these monies, I think we should carefully look at ways to close this and other Real ID loopholes.” Moreover, “in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case, it was conceded that a person doesn’t need any identification to fly, as long as they are subject to alternative screening. If a traveler with sinister intent is determined to fly on a commercial aircraft, I find it implausible they would go through the steps detailed in the Real ID, when they could get on the same plane with nothing more than a pat-down screening.” The Governor’s letter concludes: “[I]t is important that we … always remember that America’s greatest homeland security rests in liberty.” The ball is again in Homeland Security’s court—whether to blink or whether to continue pushing Real ID down our throats. The list of professional as well as political groups that have criticized Real ID from all across the political spectrum is as long as your arm. It will almost triple the cost of obtaining or renewing a driver’s license. DMV employees will find themselves trapped in the literal nightmare of having to verify hundreds of documents with original issuing agencies many of which are out-of-state. My birth certificate, for example, was issued by the State of Oklahoma, not South Carolina. The best thing that could happen is for Congress to convene a special session in the near future, put together a bill taking account of the mounting criticisms and objections to Real ID, and repeal this turkey before it creates havoc at DMVs all over the country as well as a potential nightmare beginning on May 11 for those of us who have no plans to comply. We should remember that a majority of America’s masses have still not even heard of Real ID and will feel completely blindsided by it when airport security no longer accepts their driver’s licenses as valid identification. Here in South Carolina, where government schools stopped teaching the Constitution long ago, they will stupidly turn their wrath on our state and on Governor Sanford instead of questioning the federal government’s increasing bids for unchecked power. Addendum: 9 pm March 31: Earlier this evening, the Department of Homeland Security gave South Carolina an extension, even though Governor Sanford’s letter didn’t ask for one. Just as with Montana. In other words, again DHS blinked. Governor Schweitzer said on that occasion, “I sent them a horse, and if they want to call it a zebra, that’s up to them.” Governor Sanford is more polite than that, but we’ll see what happens. -------------------------------------------- Steven Yates teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and is on the board of the South Carolina chapter of Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA. The views expressed in his columns are his own, and do not reflect official views of any of these institutions or organizations. His latest book World-views: Christian Theism versus Modern Materialism, was published last year by The Worldviews Project (for more information call 864-288-0043). He is at work on a new book tentatively entitled The Real Matrix. His email address is: