S.C.'s REAL ID win
Gov. Mark Sanford had powerful ammunition when he stuck to his guns Monday and refused to ask for an 18-month extension to a May 11 deadline for states to comply with the federal REAL ID law. Before the day was over, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff agreed that the governor had made a case for an extension even though he hadn't actually asked for one. That's a win for South Carolina and its residents, particularly those who stood to be inconvenienced at airports if penalties for non-compliance had been imposed.
In a five-page letter sent earlier Monday to Secretary Chertoff, Gov. Sanford took the position that he couldn't legally ask for a compliance extension since the Legislature passed a law last year that prohibits the implementation of the REAL ID.
The governor's position had been at odds with that of the House and Senate. Legislative leaders argued the extension request would just buy the state some time from the penalties Homeland Security had threatened to put into effect May 11. But the governor countered that such a request would have taken the state down a prohibited road since he had been informed by Homeland Security that an extension request was, indeed, a form of compliance.
Fortunately, Homeland Security softened its position last week in the case of Montana, one of the few other states that has a law forbidding implementation of the REAL ID. While the governor of that state was as adamant as Mr. Sanford against making an extension request, Montana made the case that its driver's license requirements are virtually as stringent as those specified under the REAL ID.
Gov. Sanford took that same approach in his letter to Secretary Chertoff. Since a major 2002 upgrade, the governor noted that this state has one of the most secure driver's license operations in the country and meets more than 90 percent of the REAL ID requirements. Given that DHS had agreed to accept Montana's driver's licenses after May 11, "one would reasonably expect and I would respectfully ask —that DHS be consistent and not needlessly penalize the citizens of South Carolina and allow them to travel and enter federal buildings as the citizens of all other states," he wrote.
Currently access to facilities for which the feds require identification — primarily airports — is granted on the basis of an identification issued by a state's Department of Motor Vehicles.
DHS had threatened not to allow those facilities to recognize a driver's license from a state that hadn't gotten an extension from the REAL ID compliance deadline. Had that been the case, after May 11 citizens in this state traveling by air would have been required to have a passport or undergo extra security.
But Secretary Chertoff bought South Carolina's argument as he had Montana's. The secretary told Mr. Sanford he understood his view on compliance "and I respect it," adding that, "The federal government should be interested in results, not words, and your letter offers results that will greatly improve South Carolina's driver's license security. Indeed, based on your assurances, it seems clear that South Carolina is well on its way to meeting requirements comparable to those required by the final REAL ID regulations. I will therefore treat your letter as a basis for an extension and hereby grant it."
Make no mistake, the REAL ID fight is far from over. In fact, the governor outlined in his letter some of his concerns that include the huge expense of implementing a system that will require all the states to, in effect, reissue driver's licenses to meet the REAL ID requirements. Many warn that it will effectively create a national data bank that should warrant serious privacy and security concerns.
While Secretary Chertoff took issue with some of the governor's objections in his reply, Mr. Sanford made it clear Monday night he is gearing up for the next phase of this battle. "Secretary Chertoff and his team have, to a degree, been put in the untenable situation of having to enforce a law that was never really debated in the United States Congress," he said, referring to the fact that it was passed as a rider to an emergency appropriations act. "I think it's critical that Congress step forward and debate REAL ID over the next year."
While South Carolina was among the few states to actually forbid compliance, most, in fact, have expressed concerns about various aspects of REAL ID. The fact that the cost of this unfunded mandate is estimated in the billions of dollars is at the top of most governors' lists. Congress must address those concerns before the next compliance deadline looms.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 0 comment(s)
