The Pending ID Armageddon

Public Law 109-13 was signed into law on May 11, 2005. Buried within P.L 109-13 was the Real ID Act of 2005. The original deadline for implementation was May 11, 2008, but the failure of the state and local governments to implement the Act has forced the implementation date to be delayed to Dec 31, 2009.

The Act established national standards for an ID card that will have, at a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a “common machine-readable technology”. Homeland Security can add additional requirements like digitized fingerprint or retinal scan. The card must also possess “physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.” In the infinite wisdom of our politicians, the driver’s license was chosen as the document to contain all this documentation. I suppose the reasoning was that there are probably 200 million licensed drivers in the U.S. That is about 2/3 of the population. But, by making the drivers license the National ID, it requires all the states to reconfigure their entire driver license computer systems to participate. All current drivers would be required to obtain a new drivers license based on federal requirements. This is an unfunded mandate that no state is prepared to absorb.

When Congress enacted the Real ID Act, they ignored the fact that all citizens have Social Security cards. You need to produce your Social Security number to make major purchases, obtain a passport, and obtain credit. Oh yes, when the Social Security Act was enacted we were promised that Social Security cards/numbers would not be used for identification purposes. This is just another lie in the political wastebasket. But, implementing a National ID would have been a lot easier by using a nationally recognized document – the Social Security card. For all practical purposes, the Social Security number is a National ID number.

Since passing the Real ID ACT, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has continued to add and modify the regulations related to the Real ID Act of 2005. Without an approved ID, U.S. citizens will not be able to collect Social Security, board commercial aircraft, (maybe even busses or trains) enter federal facilities, do business with the federal government or with business that do business with the federal government. With less than a year before implementation, the panic started to set in. Rather than solve the problem, Congress extended the implementation date to Dec 31, 2009. But, extending the implementation date only prolongs the problem. Regardless of your position on a National ID, unless Congress acts, we are headed for ID Armageddon.

The Real ID Act was sold as an anti-terrorism tool. While it may or may not be an effective tool to prevent terrorism, a fraud-proof ID would be effective in preventing voter fraud. Politicians fret over paper ballots vs. electronic voting, while not even requiring an ID to vote. You must produce ID to board a plane, buy alcohol, rent a video tape, or borrow a book from the library. To have papers notarized, you need to produce a picture ID, signature, and give a thumbprint.

Several third world countries have election rules and practices that are far more secure than ours. Their citizens must produce a photo, thumbprint, and signature to be allowed to vote. Their voter cards have a hologram picture, magnetic strip, ID number, and they must be certified with a thumb scan prior to voting. But in most states in the U.S., you are not required to show any ID to vote.

I find it quite amusing that our Congress-Critters demand ‘benchmarks’ for Iraqi politicians, while they ignore the coming ID Armageddon that they established. As the implementation date continues to grow closer, our Congress-Critters have not taken steps to resolve this pending train wreck. During the elections of 2006, the Democrats promised that, if elected, they would solve the plethora of problems that plagued the nation. But their rhetoric exceeds their actions.

Comment on this article | Printer friendly version