The California Legislature has taken a firm stance against the Newsom administration’s request for $55 million to fund a nationwide driver license database. The primary concern? The potential risk of deportation for the state’s more than 1 million immigrant license holders who lack federal authorization to live in the U.S.
The budget agreement released by the Assembly and Senate on Thursday night explicitly withholds the requested funds. This move aims to stall the California Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV) plan to link to a database that would start processing information requests from other states early next year.
The Controversial State-to-State System
The governor’s office and the DMV intend to share driver information with the State-to-State system and the SPEX platformoperated by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. These systems are designed to help states check for duplicate licenses. However, the system records the last five digits of a driver’s Social Security number and uses a placeholder like “99999” for those without one.
Immigrant advocates argue that this could easily flag drivers who lack a Social Security number, making them vulnerable to deportation if the information reaches Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). California has allowed residents to obtain standard driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status since the passage of Assembly Bill 60 in 2014.
The Real ID Act and Compliance Issues
State officials maintain that data sharing is necessary to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005which sets requirements for accepting state identification at federal facilities like airports. However, the Legislature’s budget proposal has drawn a stark response from the Department of Homeland Securitywhich encouraged people without federal authorization to leave the country.
The Senate released its budget proposal on Tuesday evening, omitting the funding for the DMV’s State-to-State Verification program. While the Legislature must adopt a budget by June 15it has until June 30 to negotiate budget details with the governor. Leaving out the $55 million would not entirely halt the DMV’s plan, but it could delay the targeted start date of July 1.
Advocates and Protests
Nearly 200 organizations have signed a letter opposing the DMV’s data-sharing plan, coordinated by Alliance San Diegoa community-based human rights organization. Protests have also erupted at a San Francisco branch of the DMV, highlighting the public’s concerns.
Jessie Schmitte, a state policy manager with Alliance San Diego, noted that many organizations were unaware of the discussions until a news story brought the issue to light. “If you were really serious about protecting Californians and doubling down on privacy concerns, you wouldn’t be running away from these conversations,” Schmitte stated.
The DMV requires more than funding to implement the plan. State law prohibits the DMV from sharing a Social Security number obtained through the licensing process for most purposes. This means the state needs additional legislation before providing information to the national nonprofit, a step noted in the DMV’s own budget request.
The Path Forward
A spokesman for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas indicated that discussions about the California DMV funding are ongoing. Meanwhile, Governor Newsom’s office referred questions to the Department of Finance, with spokesperson H.D. Palmer stating, “discussions have been underway and are continuing.”
Andrea Guerrero, the founding executive director of Alliance San Diego, expressed skepticism about reaching a compromise by the DMV’s deadline. “It’s hard to imagine what kind of change could be made while we’re standing at the end of a plank,” she said.
Ed Hasbrouck, with the civil liberties group The Identity Projectattended protests against the data-sharing plan and joined a call with the governor’s office and DMV about the issue in April. He emphasized the importance of understanding that once data about California drivers enters a multi-state database, guardrails are no longer possible.
Ultimately, Hasbrouck stated that the state will have to make a choice: either overturn the promises made in AB 60 and place immigrant and other Californians at risk, or decide not to comply with the Real ID Act and defend those Californians. “It’s been postponed, but that’s a choice the state is going to have to make. It can’t just avoid it,” he concluded.
