• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Driver’s Licenses and Identification Cards, 2004

February 2005

By Catherine A. Chan and Melissa Savage

(printer-friendly version)

To read portable document format (.pdf) files, you must install Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Contents

Introduction
General Identity Documentation Requirements
Lawful Presence and Licensing of Noncitizens
Consular Identification Legislation
Social Security Numbers and Individual Taxpayer Identification
Selective Service Registration
Fraud
Biometrics
Internet Efficiency
License Suspension and Revocation
Medical Limitations & Elderly Drivers
Notes
Contacts for Additional  Information

Introduction

Since the early 1900s, when Massachusetts and Missouri issued the first driver’s licenses, state legislatures have been involved in the licensing process.  Today, state legislators continue to play an important role in driver’s license policy.  In 2004, legislators debated hundreds of proposals concerning state-issued driver’s licenses and identification (ID) cards.  Many bills up for consideration in 2004 involved lawful presence requirements and driver’s license and ID card eligibility issues, including acceptable documents to prove identity.  Other bills up for debate included compliance with selective service registration for male driver’s license applicants; renewal procedures, including online and mail-in renewals; and identity theft and fraud.  

The states and the District of Colombia license more than 191 million drivers—roughly 88 percent of those eligible for a license—up more than 30 percent since 1950.    Since 1959, all states have required exams to test driving skills and traffic safety knowledge before of a license is issued. Examining drivers and issuing licenses, however, no longer is the sole concern of state licensing agencies.  Because the driver’s license has assumed a role beyond traffic safety, where both government and private entities rely on the license for personal identification, state legislatures and driver’s license agencies are concerned about the safety and security of the license as an identifier.  

States historically have determined key criteria for issuing noncommercial driver’s licenses, including age restrictions, traffic safety knowledge, and physical requirements a driver’s license applicant must meet, such as vision testing.

Until recently the federal government was not directly involved in state procedures for driver’s licensing except for commercial drivers.  The federal 2004 legislative session included efforts, which were supported by the White House, to improve the security and integrity of driver’s licenses.  The bills up for consideration were introduced in response to recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. 

Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention act of 2004 in December.  The bill calls for a U.S. Department of Transportation-led negotiated rulemaking process.  The process requires involvement of state elected officials, state department of motor vehicle officials and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security  to implement new federal standards relating to driver’s licenses.  DOT must issue regulations within 18 months from the passage of the bill.  The act established federal minimum standards to ensure the integrity of state driver’s license issuance and verification.  The new minimum standards apply to documents used to prove identity, the verification of identification documents, how applications are processed and what information will be included on driver’s licenses and identification cards. 

Other issues facing state lawmakers include special requirements for teens and older drivers and regulation of the commercial driver’s license (CDL). Each year, state legislatures attempt to balance traffic safety with personal privacy and national security.   This report summarizes the hundreds of bills considered in 2004 relating to issuance of driver’s licenses and ID cards.

General Identity Documentation Requirements

To obtain a state-issued driver’s license or ID card an applicant must present acceptable documentation that identifies him or her as the person applying for a driver’s license or ID card.  Through statute or administrative code, states regulate, what forms of personal identification are acceptable.  Most states organize acceptable identity documents into two categories: primary and secondary.  Each state determines which documents fall into each category, how many documents from each category must be presented at application, and what information must be contained on each document. Generally, primary documents must be verifiable and display the full name and birth date of the applicant. Examples include certified birth certificate, state driver’s license or ID card not expired more than six months, or military identification documents with photograph. Examples of acceptable secondary documents include employer or student ID cards, health insurance cards or credit cards.

In the 2004 legislative session, at least 15 states—Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Washington—considered legislation pertaining to documentation requirements for obtaining a driver’s license or ID card.

Under a new law in Arizona, the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles is not allowed to accept a driver’s license from a state that does not require the person to be lawfully present in the United States as a primary source of identification.  In Tennessee, legislators passed a bill that requires two proofs of identity and two proofs of Tennessee residency.

The Florida Legislature debated a bill that would have authorized the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to cancel ID cards and driver’s licenses that were issued based on certain documents that had been invalidated.  The bill did not pass.  In Washington, a bill was defeated that would have prohibited the issuance of a Washington driver’s license or ID card if the applicant’s identity could not be established.

Lawful Presence and Licensing of Noncitizens

Since September 2001, nearly every state has considered legislation regarding licensing of undocumented immigrants—someone who enters or lives in the United States without official authorization.  Supporters of restricting licenses to those who are lawfully present in the United States argue that driving is a privilege and that granting a license to undocumented immigrants encourages the influx of illegal immigrants through U.S. borders. 

Opponents of restricting license eligibility argue that, by not being able to apply for a license, these individuals are unable to obtain motor vehicle insurance or receive proper driver education and examination.  Traffic safety concerns arise because, with or without a license, many are likely to continue driving. 

Some—but not all—states require a driver’s license or ID card applicant to be lawfully present in the United States. According to the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), 11 states do not have lawful presence requirements: Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

By definition, all U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals are lawfully present in the United States. Those who are neither U.S. citizens nor U.S. nationals (referred to herein as noncitizens) are considered lawfully present in the United States if they have an immigration status. Among the many different categories of immigration status are lawful permanent residents (those holding a “green card”), refugees, asylees, people granted temporary protected status, and people who have been granted employment authorization by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS).

Although a birth certificate showing birth in a U.S. state or territory or the District of Columbia is the most common document used as proof of U.S. citizenship and lawful presence, many other documents also serve this purpose. Many people who were born abroad are U.S. citizens, either through a U.S. citizen parent or through naturalization in the United States. People born in the Northern Mariana Islands or Swain’s Islands may not be U.S. citizens but still may be U.S. nationals and, as such, are entitled to remain in the United States. Just as numerous immigration categories fall under the definition of lawful presence, a great variety of documents may be presented by noncitizens to demonstrate that they have an immigration status. For example, at least six documents can be used to prove that a person is a lawful permanent resident and at least four can be used to prove that a person is a refugee.

In some states, although there is no lawful presence requirement, there is a de facto lawful presence requirement because the list of documents acceptable to prove identity exclude people who are not lawfully present. Social security number (SSN) requirements, for example, may serve as de facto lawful presence requirement. Further, many people who are lawfully present in the United States may be denied licenses under current state laws because the documents they carry to prove lawful presence are not included on the list of acceptable documents. In other cases, applicants are denied licenses because their foreign-issued birth certificates or other identification documents are not accepted.

Recent debate at the federal level—as a result of recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission—called attention to the potential security weaknesses of driver’s licenses and ID cards.  Therefore, many states continue to strengthen licensing processes in an effort to prevent terrorists from obtaining false identification that could be used to board airplanes.

According to the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), 39 states and the District of Columbia currently require applicants for driver’s licenses to be lawfully present under U.S. law.¹  Some states have lawful presence requirements in statute or administrative code, while others use a combination of identification document requirements at application.  Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia currently require that driver’s licenses expire with immigrant’s visas. These states include Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

In 2004 at least 19 states—Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin—considered legislation pertaining to lawful presence requirements and licensing of noncitizens.

The Alabama Legislature passed a bill that requires: 1) driver’s license applications for noncitizens (excluding lawful permanent residents) to include the applicant’s country of origin and expiration date of the immigration document used as proof of lawful presence; 2) noncitizens to apply only at designated Department of Motor Vehicles offices; 3) driver’s licenses issued to noncitizens to identify that the bearer is a “foreign national;” 4) driver’s licenses to expire when the immigration documents presented at licensing expires; and 5) noncitizens to reapply for a driver’s license upon its expiration.

Under a new law in Illinois, the secretary of state may issue a temporary visitor’s driver’s license to a foreign national residing in Illinois who is ineligible for a social security number. The applicant must provide documentation issued by the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) authorizing their presence in the United States. The temporary license is valid for three years, or for the period of time the person is authorized to be in the United States, whichever ends sooner.  In Nebraska, legislators passed a bill that requires the lawful presence of driver’s license and ID card applicants.  Under the new law, any licenses or ID cards issued will expire on the date lawful presence expires.

The Tennessee legislature enacted a bill that prohibits the issuance of driver’s licenses to anyone who is not in the United States legally. Under the new law, applicants for a Tennessee driver’s license must provide proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residence. The law creates a “Certificate for Driving” for those residents who cannot establish their legal status. Individuals who are eligible for a Certificate for Driving include those who have temporary, legal documents from the U.S. government—such as work visas or educational visas—and those who do not meet the eligibility requirements for a Tennessee driver’s license but can provide proof of identity and residence in Tennessee.² 

Vermont enacted HB 199, which requires noncitizen driver’s licenses to expire when the applicant’s “authorized duration of stay” expires.  Legislators in Arizona debated a proposal that would have eliminated the requirement that all applicants for a driver’s license be in the United States legally.  The bill did not pass.

Consular Identification Legislation

Consular identification is an official identity card issued by a foreign national government to its citizens who are living abroad. According to NILC, 10 states—Idaho, Indiana, Michigan (accepted on a case-by-case basis), Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon (must be approved by Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles), Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin—accept the matricula consular card, the document issued by the Mexican Consulate.

At least six states—Arizona, Florida, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Washington—debated legislation concerning consular identification in 2004. Legislators in South Dakota passed a bill that prohibits state agencies, state-supported universities or post-secondary technical institutions from accepting a matricula consular card or similar documents issued by the Mexican Consulate as proof of identification for any purpose.

The South Carolina and Utah legislatures debated bills that would have prohibited government entities from accepting matricula consular as a form of identification.  Neither bill passed.  In Arizona, a proposal was considered that would have allowed an applicant for a driver’s license, an ID card or an instruction permit to use an embassy or consulate issued identification card to meet identification requirements.  The bill did not pass.

A bill up for debate in Washington would have allowed the Department of Licensing to enter into agreements with foreign countries and would have waived the requirement for licensed drivers, age 18 years or older, from those countries to take the driver’s license examination. Further, the bill stated that the department could enter into such an agreement only if the country: 1) had procedures in place to verify the validity of the drivers’ licenses; and 2) agreed to waive the driver’s license examination and education requirements for Washington licensed drivers who apply for a driver’s license in that country.  The bill did not pass.

Federal legislation on consular identification also was introduced in 2004. HR 4440, the “Identification Security Act of 2004,” would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to make a consular identification card issued by a foreign country inadmissible for federal identification-related requirements if the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

Social Security Numbers and Individual Taxpayer Identification

Numbers

Federal law requires that states collect social security numbers (SSN) from driver’s license applicants under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.³  The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996⁴  included a provision that required states to place SSN numbers on state driver’s licenses. This provision was repealed in 1999. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997⁵ expanded the SSN collection requirement to include both commercial and noncommercial driver’s licenses. This act requires licensing offices to collect SSNs, but does not require individuals to have an SSN as a condition for receiving a state driver’s license. It also advises state licensing offices to obtain a sworn affidavit from applicants stating that they do not have an SSN.⁶ 

Most states require applicants to provide proof of their SSN as a prerequisite for obtaining a driver’s license. However, many states have exceptions to that rule, which range from providing a Letter L-676 from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to a sworn affidavit from an applicant stating that he or she neither has, nor is eligible for, an SSN.

Some states, such as New Mexico, allow applicants to submit Internal Revenue Service (IRS) individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITIN) in lieu of an SSN. Under U.S. law, earned income is taxable whether the earner is in the country legally or illegally. To track earnings of immigrants who are not eligible for an SSN, the IRS created the ITIN, a nine-digit number similar to the SSN. Currently, six states—Illinois (in the case of religious objections), Kentucky, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah and West Virginia—allow submission of the ITIN in lieu of the SSN at application for a driver’s license, according to NILC (table 1).  In the 2004 legislative session, at least 12 states—Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Utah—considered legislation pertaining to SSNs and ITINs.

Legislators in Kansas passed a bill that prohibits the use of an ITIN in lieu of an SSN.  Under a new law in Nebraska, any SSN submitted by a driver’s license applicant must be validated with the Social Security Administration (SSA).  The license can be canceled if it is later determined that the SSN provided is invalid.

Table 1. Driver's Licenses: SSN and ITIN Requirements

Source: National Immigration Law Center, Overview of States' Driver's License Requirements, January, 2005.

Selective Service Registration

Federal law⁷ requires all male U.S. citizens and immigrant men living in the United States to register with the Selective Service System (SSS) when they reach age 18.⁸  The federal government and states have tied SSS registration for males to the availability of services and employment opportunities. Failure to register is a crime punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or up to five years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, many federal opportunities—including eligibility for student loans, job training, federal employment and citizenship for male immigrants—are denied to young men who fail to register. Not registering by age 26 results in permanent loss of these opportunities.

Although no federal law requires SSS registration at application for a state driver’s license, many states have enacted such laws. According to the Selective Service, as of October 2004, 33 states, three territories and the District of Columbia have enacted driver’s license laws that supporting SSS registration.  They are: 1) Enacted and implemented—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia; 2) enacted but not yet implemented—Guam, Maryland, Minnesota and Wisconsin.  In 2004, legislation requiring SSS registration at application for a driver’s license or ID card was introduced in at least four states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming.  None of the bills passed.

Fraud

Forged identification documents can lead to increased strains on criminal justice systems, driving up the cost of investigations, prosecutions and incarceration. State legislatures have considered various proposals during the last several years to stop individuals from acquiring driver’s licenses through the use of fraudulent documents.  Another area of concern is state employees who knowingly help another obtain fraudulent licenses or ID cards.

In 2004, states considered a variety of measures aimed at deterring the presentation of fraudulent documents by applicants and at increasing coordination between state agencies to combat driver’s license and ID fraud. At least 10 states—Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Washington and Wyoming—debated proposals aimed at preventing fraud in the driver’s licensing and ID card processes.

Legislators in Georgia passed a bill that makes it a misdemeanor for a driving instructor to falsely certify that an applicant passed a road test.  In Hawaii, a new law adds the use of a false or fictitious name on a driver’s license application to provisions related to the unlawful use of a driver’s license.

Under a new law in Nebraska, license office employees will be guilty of a Class IV felony for providing access to licensing systems or for knowingly facilitating the issuance of a license or ID card based on fraudulent information. The new law also makes it a Class IV felony to use false identification when applying for a license or ID card.

A bill up for debate in Indiana would have made it a Class D felony to commit fraud against the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, a class D felony to possess a false document from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and a Class C felony to assist in a fraud against the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.  The bill did not pass.  Wyoming legislators considered a proposal to create a distinctive format for minor licenses in an attempt to prevent underage drinking.  The bill did not pass.

Biometrics

One way to combat fraud is through use of biometrics.  Many states have turned to use of this technology to guard against the presentation of a fraudulent driver’s license or ID card at licensing offices.   Biometric technology verifies the identity of individuals based on their unique physical characteristics. Through the use of special software, photographs or scans of unique physical features such as facial features, retinas or fingerprints, identity can be verified by cross-checking existing databases.

Balancing the use of technology and public safety with personal privacy has been a concern at both the state and federal levels, especially since September 11, 2001.  Law enforcement officers often have difficulty visually determining the authenticity of driver’s licenses.  However, personal privacy concerns with respect to the collection, retention and dissemination of individual biometric data also are of concern. This process requires balancing what may be unwanted intrusion with the potential elimination of fraud.  Many issues need to be considered in regard to the use of biometric technology.  For example, what type of biometric data should be included, what format should be used (bar code, magnetic strip or computer chip), and what agencies will have access to the data?

At least 13 states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Washington—and the District of Columbia employ some form of biometric technology to verify the identity of applicants who are renewing or replacing driver’s licenses.  In California, for example every applicant for an original or renewal driver’s license or ID card is required to submit a legible print of his or her thumb or finger. In Georgia, biometric data is contained in a bar code on the back of driver’s licenses. The information includes both fingerprint identification and facial image recognition.

During the 2004 legislative session, at least five states—California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington—considered measures related to biometric technology and processes involving driver’s licensing and state-issued identification.

Legislators in Washington passed a bill that allows driver’s license and ID card applicants to voluntary submit biometric information beginning in January 2006. Any person who submits information may choose to discontinue participation in the program at any time, and the collected biometric data will be destroyed. The Washington state Department of Transportation is charged with selecting the type of biometric matching system that is compliant with biometric standards set by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). The department can charge applicants an additional fee of no more than $2 to defray the costs of implementation.

A 10-member joint subcommittee to study the desirability and feasibility of issuing driver’s licenses and ID cards containing an embedded computer chip that stores biometric and other personal data was established through legislation passed in Virginia.  A bill that passed in Illinois requires the secretary of state and the state police to work together to develop policies and procedures that capture and encode fingerprint information on driver’s licenses and ID cards.

A proposal in Pennsylvania would have required the development of an identification system based on applicant thumbprints or fingerprints.  Under the proposed system, the prints would be cross-referenced with all other fingerprints or other biometric identification in the database to authenticate the print and to ensure that each individual is issued only one driver’s license and that an individual is not fraudulently obtaining a driver’s license in another individual’s name.  The bill did not pass.

Internet Efficiency

During the last few years, many states have debated proposals designed to make the licensing process more efficient through the use of the Internet and mail.  In 2004, at least three states—Colorado, Delaware and Washington—considered measures in this area.  Under a new law in Colorado, drivers can renew their license via the Internet if they are between the ages of 21 and 66 and have no outstanding fines or penalties.  Legislators in Washington enacted SB 5428, which allows for driver’s license renewal through the mail or via the Internet.  The Delaware legislature considered a proposal that would have allowed Internet or mail-in renewal of driver’s licenses.  The bill did not pass.

License Suspension and Revocation

Driver’s license suspension and revocation is a tool used by many states to penalize drivers for serious offenses such as drunk driving.  Each year, state legislatures consider proposals associated with license suspension and revocation and with unlicensed driving or driving with a suspended or revoked license. 

In 2004, the Virginia legislature passed a bill that makes it a Class 6 felony to drive on a suspended or revoked license and cause death or serious bodily injury to another.  The Kentucky legislature considered a proposal that would have allowed a District Court to issue a person a hardship driver’s license for violating general traffic laws that have caused a person’s driver’s license to be suspended. The hardship license would have been patterned after the provisions currently in place for the driving under the influence (DUI) hardship license. The bill did not pass.  Legislators in Rhode Island debated a bill that would have added leaving the scene of an accident resulting in personal injury to the list of offenses punishable by license suspension.

In New York, legislators considered a bill that would have broadened the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree to include those who operate a motor vehicle when their licenses have been suspended or revoked for a conviction of a traffic infraction or any crime associated with the operation of a vehicle. The bill did not pass.  Another bill defeated in New York would have required the state to deny any driver’s license application from a person convicted of a traffic infraction in another state that, if committed in New York, would have resulted in the suspension or revocation of New York state driving privileges.

Medical Limitations and Elderly Drivers

People over age 65 make up 12 percent of the total U.S. population, or 35 million people.  This figure will double by 2030. In 2002 (2003 figures not available), nearly 20 million older drivers were licensed in the United States—a 29 percent increase since 1992, according to NHTSA. As this age group increases, many states and organizations are researching their safe mobility. Concern about older driver safety has increased during the last few years, in light of recent serious crashes involving older drivers.

Thirty-four states use medical review boards or medical advisory boards to help determine when a driver should no longer be allowed to drive for health-related reasons. Typically, these boards do not make a determination based solely on age. The boards—made up of health care professionals and physicians—make recommendations to motor vehicle licensing agencies about the physical and mental capacity of certain drivers. The boards also make recommendations about licensing standards.

California, Delaware, New Jersey, Oregon and Pennsylvania have mandatory physician reporting requirements. Physicians in these states must report patients who are diagnosed with conditions that may cause lapses of consciousness. The reports are confidential, and most states with these requirements provide civil and criminal immunity for the physician. In Pennsylvania, a physician who fails to inform the proper authorities about a medically impaired patient could be found negligent if the driver is involved in a crash.

Currently, states are turning not only to medical review boards and medical advisory boards, but also to driver’s licensing laws for older drivers. Some states use accelerated renewal cycles, vision testing and in-person renewals rather than online or mail renewals for older drivers. Illinois and New Hampshire require road tests for drivers over age 75.

In 2004, legislators in Kansas passed legislation that permits certain health care providers to report people who are not able to safely operate a motor vehicle. The bill allows physicians and optometrists to report to the Division of Motor Vehicles or the Medical Advisory Board any person diagnosed with a condition that could prevent the person from safely operating a motor vehicle or that could constitute an immediate and serious danger to the public.

The Washington Legislature debated a bill that would have required physicians or health care providers to report health conditions of patients who pose a safety risk. The bill died at the end of the session. Legislators in Tennessee and Virginia debated legislation to create study committees to examine the effects of aging on driving; neither bill passed. The Virginia legislature passed a bill that requires drivers over age 80 to pass a vision test.  The Louisiana Legislature passed HB 1550, which allows driver’s license applicants to use bioptic telescopic lenses to meet vision requirements.

In New York, a bill was considered that would have allowed the commissioner of motor vehicles, upon good cause, to require a licensee to demonstrate competency through an exam. The commissioner is authorized to suspend, revoke, deny or restrict the license of a licensee. Reports that tend to show that the licensee is not competent to operate a motor vehicle may be submitted by police or peace officers, medical professionals or family members.  The bill did not pass.

In California, a bill was debated that would have changed the physician reporting requirement from mandatory to voluntary.  The bill would have required every individual driver to report to the department any medical condition that is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to safely operate a motor vehicle within 10 days of the driver becoming aware of this condition. Under the bill, the department would have to arrange a medical or psychological examination of the reporting driver and to cancel the driver’s license if the examination indicates that the driver is unable to safely operate a motor vehicle.  The bill died in committee.  The Colorado legislature considered a bill that would have created a medical advisory board to help the Department of Revenue determine whether a licensed driver or applicant is physically, mentally and cognitively able to operate a motor vehicle in Colorado.

Notes

      1.   National Immigration Law Center, Overview of States’ Driver’s License Requirements, updated September 29, 2004. Available at:  http://www.nilc.org/immspbs/DLs/state_dl_rqrmts_ovrvw_092904.pdf .

      2.   “Tennessee Certificate for Driving,” available at www.tennessee.gov/safety/certificatefordriving.htm.

      3.   42 U.S.C. §651, 656.

      4.   Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 309 (1996).

      5.   Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997).

      6.   DHHS PIQ-99-05, July 14, 1999.

      7.   50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.

      8.   Selective Service System Fast Facts: Laws Linking SSS Registration to State Driver’s License Applications (October 2004), available at: http://www.sss.gov/FSdrivers.htm.

Contacts for More Information

© 2005 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved.

ISBN 1-58024-382-7

 Transportation Review page

Visitor counts for this page.