AB 60 — Alejo is requiring a marked license

No good news. Alejo has caved in to requiring a marked license. I just got news that:

Unfortunately, Asm. Alejo put amendments across the desk that will require driver’s licenses to undocumented community members to be marked, and the driver’s license will not be allowed to be used as identification.

Here are some of the new key provisions in AB 60:

Discretion to the Department of Motor Vehicles
In 12801.9 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12801.5, the department may issue an original driver’s license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant’s presence in the United States is authorized under federal law if he or she meets all other qualifications for licensure and provides satisfactory proof to the department of his or her identity and California residency.
The key word here is “may”. The Department of Motor Vehicles doesn’t actually have to follow through. “Shall” would have made it mandatory.

Identity Documents to get a Driver’s License
As part of implementation, the DMV will work in consultation with “appropriate law enforcement representatives” such as “the California Highway Patrol, the California State Sheriff’s Association, and the California Police Chiefs Association.”
No community stakeholders, community groups, civil rights groups, etc. were designated to be a part of this stakeholder process

The Markings, which also forbid use as identification
On The Back: The marking will read, “This card is not acceptable for federal purposes; it is acceptable for driving privileges only.” This new sentence will appear before the sentence that is already on the back of the license.
On The Front: If you look at your license, you’ll see a DL in front of your driver’s license number. For the undocumented, there will be a “DP” for driver privilege.
However, another provision says that if the US Dept. of Homeland Security is not satisfied with these markings the DMV can then “modify the license in the manner necessary to satisfy the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005….”

Problems with Anti-Discrimination Provision
There is a section included to make discrimination of holders of these licenses a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. However, Unruh only applies to the private sector, and would not cover discrimination from the public sector (law enforcement, other governmental agencies, whether they are federal or state)

A person applying for a license “pursuant to this section may be required to pay an additional fee determined by the DMV that is sufficient to offset the reasonable administrative costs of implementing the provisions of the act that added this section.” If the additional fee is assessed it will only apply until 6/30/17

Operative Date
January 1, 2015, but could be earlier if the DMV moves forward and follows through with implementation.

 No Confidentiality or Privacy Protections
No privacy or confidentiality protections are included.
The deadline for amendments has passed, so this is now the bill. We will continue to review the legislation, and send updates. The bill was amended shortly before 5pm, so language may not be in print until Monday. However, the leg counsel draft that was put across the Senate desk is attached.

1 thought on “AB 60 — Alejo is requiring a marked license

  1. Pingback: 60 z

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *