Real ID legislation continues to be an example of what not to do in terms of driving a cross-government standard.
Don't get me wrong -- the reasons behind a mandate for tamper-proof, electronically readable driver's licenses that follow standards set by the Department of Homeland Security make sense. National security is top of mind, and Real ID will make it far more difficult for people to reside in the United States illegally. But the manner in which the legislation was passed down seems such a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and the War on Terror, lacking the due process that ensures a major project such as this is well-thought out and (eventually) properly implemented.
Just look at how Real ID became law. When first introduced, the legislation passed in the House, but then went stagnant. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin attached it as a "rider" to a military spending bill -- a tactic used to pass a controversial provision that could not pass as its own bill. The tactic worked, and Real ID was signed into law May 2005 with no Senate debate and little opportunity for comment from states.
So next came plans for how these IDs would be implemented. The law set national standards, but left actual issuance of cards and maintenance of databases up to the states. Beyond that, little funding has been passed down from the federal government to help finance the initiative, which is causing more and more states to dig in their heels and refuse to cooperate.
Maine was the first to reject the federal requirements, with officials noting it would cost the state $185 million over five years (in total, states will be have to pay $23 billion over 10 year to finance the initiative) and would overload the Department of Motor Vehicles as state residents filter in to have various forms of identification uploaded into a federal database. Six other states followed Maine's lead: Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Colorado and Arkansas all enacted legislation opposing Real ID.
And now Congress is addressing issues of privacy. In a hearing on the Hill Tuesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont led critics who take notion with the idea of a national database of personal information accessible to state and federal officials and others. Leahy has co-sponsored bipartisan legislation to repeal the provision.
From a channel perspective, Real ID opens the door to loads of opportunities, as states theoretically scramble to meet the federal requirements -- implementing enterprise applications and database technologies, as well as the infrastructure to support such an endeavor. But thanks to those on the Hill who decided to forgo the necessary steps to achieve cross-government support and efficient plans for implementation, Real ID stands as a big mess that might be best left untouched by the channel for the time being.
