In a move that has sparked significant debate, California lawmakers are withholding funds requested by Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration for a national driver’s license database. The concern? That the shared information could potentially lead to deportations of undocumented immigrants.
The legislative budget agreement, published last Thursday, freezes $55 million allocated to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for connecting to a database that would start processing information requests from other states early next year.
The Controversial Data Sharing Plan
The plan involves sharing driver information with the State-to-State system and the SPEX platform, operated by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAVM). 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 marker like 99999 for those without one, raising alarms among immigrant advocates.
Critics argue that this could easily identify drivers without a Social Security number, potentially exposing undocumented immigrants to deportation if the information reaches immigration enforcement agencies like ICE or the Border Patrol. California law, known as the Assembly Bill 60 passed in 2014, allows residents to obtain a driver’s license regardless of their immigration status.
Legal and Political Implications
State officials maintain that the data exchange is necessary to comply with the 2005 REAL ID Actwhich sets standards for state-issued IDs to be accepted at federal facilities like airports. However, the plan has faced stiff opposition from immigrant rights groups and nearly 200 organizations that signed a coalition letter against it.
Protests have erupted, including a demonstration at a DMV office in San Francisco earlier this month. Advocates credit CalMatters with bringing the issue to light earlier this year. Jessie Schmitte, state policy manager at Alliance San Diego, highlighted the importance of the CalMatters report in raising awareness about the plan.
“As you probably know, many organizations were unaware of these discussions until the CalMatters article shed light on the issue,” Schmitte said. “If they truly cared about protecting Californians and enhancing privacy efforts, they wouldn’t be avoiding these conversations.”
The Path Forward
The DMV requires more than just funding to implement the plan. State law prohibits the DMV from sharing Social Security numbers obtained during the license application process for most purposes. This means additional legislation is needed before the DMV can provide information to the national nonprofit organization, a step the DMV itself acknowledges in its budget request.
The AAVM, a nonprofit whose board includes DMV officials from across the country, would use the information to help other states ensure that individuals do not hold identification documents in multiple locations. However, advocates fear that local officials in those states could pass the database information to federal authorities regarding suspected undocumented immigrants. The AAVM has stated that its database does not allow for mass searches or searches without specific information like a name and date of birth.
A spokesperson for Assembly President Robert Rivas confirmed that discussions about DMV funding are ongoing. The staff of two other legislators did not respond to requests for information about the negotiations. Governor Newsom’s office referred questions to the Department of Finance, where spokesperson HD Palmer stated that “conversations have been ongoing and continue.”
Andrea Guerrero, founding executive director of Alliance San Diego, expressed skepticism about reaching an agreement before the DMV’s deadline. “It’s hard to imagine what kind of changes could be made while we’re at the end of the table,” she said.
Ed Hasbrouck, of the civil liberties advocacy group The Identity Project, participated in protests against the data-sharing plan and a call with the governor’s office and the DMV in April. He expressed satisfaction with the legislators’ decision to delay funding but emphasized the importance of understanding that once California driver data enters a multistate database, safeguards cannot be established because the plan requires sharing data on all license holders.
“It has been postponed, but it’s a decision the state will have to make. They can’t just avoid it,” Hasbrouck said. Ultimately, the state will have to choose between upholding the promises made in AB 60 and protecting immigrants and other Californians, or deciding not to comply with the REAL ID Act and defending those Californians.
