"about all driver’s licenses and ID cards"
This isnt just about drivers. That matters. Driving a car is not a fundamental right. But access to a state ID card, something you will need to access many services, probably is.
What are the downsides of not cooperating? What is his motivation or benefits for capitulating?
Edit: Oh, ahhh I see: "Governor Gavin Newsom agreed to upload driver's license data to a national database primarily to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005 and avoid federal threats that would prevent California IDs from being accepted at airports and other federal facilities. This decision was finalized through a budget compromise with the state legislature following intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security"
It sounds like this database is the one that feeds license data to NCIC. The bigger question here is if we should be compiling and using data in the NCIC suchbas driver licenses and carry permits.
Not that it's acceptable but federal database of drivers licenses is smallest of privacy problems these days with federal overreach
NSA never ever stopped collecting phone calls, they have been storing that data in larger and larger databases in the deserts. Now "ai" can make all that into some insane level of datamining
>>We are choosing to stand in solidarity with Muslim Americans,
This particular word, with no other specifc identities after that, takes the air out of this massive effort and gives the impression it is a localized effort.
The Federal government can't constructively require States to share the Real ID data with them, only ask politely, as that would go against existing Constitutional case law. Many States have declined to share Real ID data with the Federal government while still implementing Real ID. It is a bit surprising that California would agree to this.
At least Washington state still issues UnrealID in case the applicant is not willing to pay the extra fee or cannot or willnot provide the extra documentation. I don't think UnrealIDs have to be submitted?
As I understand it, most other states rolled the extra cost into the general fee for IDs, but Washington does not like to spread costslike that.
From a state perspective, there’s a lot of benefit to exchanging this type of information across state lines through AAMVA. It reduces a lot of fraud, avoids a lot of insurance issues that cost the state taxpayers a lot of money. It has a lot of benefits to things like commercial motor carrier safety that have a direct benefit to the public.
For example, New York does direct entity to entity sharing of many driving records with Ontario and Quebec. The Canadians benefited because I don’t allow people with DWIs to enter Canada, New York benefited by keeping unsafe truckers off state highways, who were exploiting certain pools in Canadian regulations.
It’ll take a bit of time, But the long game here is that the United States will have a national ID system.
The big conflict is that states issue licenses (AB 60 in California, “green light” in other places) without regard to the ability to provide legal documentation of legal residency. Advocates fear that the sharing will be used by the hypervigilant immigration bureaucracy. States don’t enforce immigration law, but every resident of a state is at risk if people are driving around without insurance or without being subject to driving licensing laws. This also allows populations like the homeless to get IDs, But it’s being used as a punching bag by right wing commentators, rallying against illegal alien truckers and other nonsense.
(There is only one team in US politics.)
This statement was about the specific incoming US administration that was anti-immigrant, and especially anti-Muslim. It is a localized effort, because not every place has the same problems and needs the same solutions, and hyper-generalized statements that don't call out any particular instances of a problem are meaningless.
> States aren’t (yet) required to upload pointers for noncompliant licenses or ID cards. There’s been no explicit announcement of the full live launch of S2S, but it appears that the first states are only beginning to use S2S (other than as a pilot project) this month. The DHS isn’t (yet) considering whether states have complied with the database access provisions of the REAL-ID Act when it makes its discretionary decisions whether to certify “material” compliance or “progress” toward compliance. But AAMVA, which determines the SPEXS standards, could add a requirement for upload of pointers for all licenses and IDs, not just “compliant” ones, to its specifications for system participation at any time. And the DHS will eventually have to assess actual compliance with the REAL-ID Act, not mere progress toward it. At that point, any state that wants to use S2S and SPEXS as the basis for a compliance finding will have to upload pointer records for all licenses and ID cards it has issued — even noncompliant or “opt-out” licenses or IDs.
This has the effect of creating a private national ID database, without transparency or accountability, which is kind of a worst-case scenario. (AAMVA is a private entity.)
It's complicated within each party, but not overall. Idealogues prefer debating other idealogues because they use the same vocabularies and that preference is why they are always fighting, they like it. But the fat part of the curve in the middle is mostly made up of non idealogues who are quietly saying "can't you just shut up and compromise, let's be practical".
The Supreme Court will do backflips to make the determination that they’re paid to make.
Since the federal law requiring this was passed in 2005, it's another historically and unpopular president and fedgov.
(I am of course referring to Abraham Lincoln and the 1861 federal government)
Jun 27 2026
Withdrawing its opposition under behind-the-scenes pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawless threats from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the California legislature has agreed to fund and revise state law to authorize the upload of information about all driver’s licenses and ID cards issued by the state to the private SPEXS national ID database operated by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).
The budget compromise between Gov. Newsom and the legislature announced last night includes “guardrails” intended to give an illusion of protection for license and ID data.
There’s no time before the hearing on the budget compromise scheduled for Monday morning in the Senate Budget Committee for legislators to assess whether those guardrails will be effective. But to anyone aware of the real threat, it’s apparent that they are a sham.
That was inevitable, as we’ve pointed out in our previous statements to the legislature.
Once this data is transferred to AAMVA, components of the DHS or other Federal or state law enforcement agencies will be able to obtain it from AAMVA by court order. Such a subpoena or warrant could, and probably would, include a gag order prohibiting AAMVA from disclosing it to the state of California or to the individuals whose data is disclosed.
Even after the fact, neither California nor individual Californians will know that this has happened or be able to challenge it.
That data could be misused in many ways, but it’s especially likely be weaponized against immigrant and transgende Californians who are already being targeted by Federal agencies and other states.
The summary of the proposed “budget trailer” bill released last night says that it “Limits data sharing to only that required by federal law.” But that’s not true. “Compliance” with the REAL-ID by California or any other state is optional, not required. Neither the Federal REAL-ID Act nor any other Federal law requires, or could require, California or any other state to share any data with AAMVA, a private nonprofit corporation.
As we pointed out in our earlier testimony on the budget proposal, California has a choice. The state could and should say “No” to premature capitulation to DHS threats.
The Legislature should reject this “compromise” sell-out. Instead, the state, through its Attorney General, could and should prepare to defend Californians against any interference by the DHS or Transportation Security Administration (TSA) with our right to travel.