For most of us, driver’s licenses have become the gold standard of identification. You want to get on a plane or cash a check? Pull it out of your wallet.
That’s why the current brouhaha over what papers you must show in order to get this door-opening document is so important.
Recently, M. Michael Cooke, who oversees the state Division of Motor Vehicles, significantly ratcheted up the state’s requirements. She contends she has authority to make such adjustments as she sees fit.
The idea of imposing stricter standards is to prevent ID fraud by making sure those seeking a Colorado driver’s license were presenting legitimate documents to verify their identity and residency status.
It’s a laudable goal, but the DMV’s new requirements are too restrictive. For example, the DMV will not accept a U.S. passport as proof of identity and lawful presence. While it’s true that there are counterfeit passports in circulation, there are few more reliable indicators for identification of most citizens. Cooke has said in published comments that sometimes passports will be issued in a nickname – like Andy instead of Andrew – and that could leave room for fraud.
In the world according to the Colorado DMV, Texas and Puerto Rican birth certificates are suspect, too, as are tribal ID cards. That’s because the DMV has determined these documents are given to counterfeiting.
People who are entitled to Colorado driver’s licenses have been inconvenienced by the new DMV rules, and worse yet, denied. Such anecdotes from legitimate applicants abound.
Recently, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of homeless people who say the rules effectively prevent them from getting driver’s licenses or identification cards.
Last week, Denver District Judge Larry Naves issued a ruling saying the state had overstepped its authority in setting the identification requirements. Naves signed a preliminary injunction, which is scheduled to take effect at the end of business today, ordering Colorado to drop its so-called two-document rule. The DMV may appeal the injunction today, or else it will come up with an alternate set of rules.
Currently, applicants must present two IDs from a list of 19 documents the DMV considers acceptable. The DMV’s legal trouble stems from its failure to invite public input on the change before enacting it, the judge ruled. Perhaps the state will hold public hearings and get right by administrative procedures. But that won’t change the burden of the restrictive new requirements.
Document fraud and identity theft are important issues, and the state is right to look for ways to tighten up the system. But it’s also imperative that such rules are not so onerous that people legitimately seeking a driver’s license are forced to jump through a difficult series of hoops. Surely, there must be a reasonable middle ground.
