Transportation

The Proposed Driver's License Agreement

An Analysis

Adobe Acrobat Logo (printer-friendly version)

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

March 2005

Preface

In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, federal and state lawmakers are working to improve national security. Because many of the September 11 hijackers boarded airplanes using state-issued driver's licenses, much debate has focused on improving the security and integrity of the driver license system. One driver license measure, touted at both the federal and state levels as a potential enhancement for driver licensing security, is an interstate agreement--developed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)--called the Driver's License Agreement (DLA). This brief examines the DLA and analyzes the agreement within the context of the current driver licensing system.

Background

The driver's license is one of the most familiar documents issued by state governments. The states and the District of Columbia provide driver's licenses to approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population--more than 191 million drivers. Traditionally, the most important function of the driver's license has been to improve traffic safety. The license can be issued only to drivers who demonstrate the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. When a law enforcement officer stops a driver for a traffic offense, the license is used to quickly establish a motorist's identity and indicate whether the motorist should be allowed to continue to drive.

The modern license has evolved in function. Now, in addition to serving as a traffic safety document, the driver's license also has become a widely used identification card. It can be used to prove identity at airports, in liquor stores, at movie theaters, in banks and in a host of other venues.

State governments play the most significant role in the current system for licensing non-commercial drivers. States decide the content, character and appearance of driver's licenses issued in their jurisdiction. They choose the procedures used for driver's license applications and testing and determine the information to be collected from applicants. States establish records for drivers licensed in their jurisdiction and track convictions for motor vehicle offenses on the record. State employees staff the motor vehicle offices that process applications and renewals, test applicants and returning drivers, examine driver qualifications, establish the driver's identity, and photograph the driver.

States can determine procedures and standards for issuing and using licenses within their own jurisdiction. However, because drivers cross state borders and use their licenses in states where they do not live, states need legal mechanisms to determine how to treat out-of-state licenses. Two interstate agreements--the Driver's License Compact (DLC) and the Non-resident Violators Compact (NRVC)--currently guide how states address traffic violations committed by nonresidents.

The DLC, which first became effective in Nevada in 1961, contains procedures for reporting out-of-state convictions to the state where the driver is licensed. Under the agreement, for specified offenses, the effect of a conviction in another member state is the same as if the conviction had occurred in the home state of the license holder. In addition, when a member state evaluates applications for a new license, the DLC requires the licensing authority to ascertain whether the applicant is currently licensed or was licensed in another member state.

Absent such an agreement, drivers could accumulate multiple records in multiple jurisdictions, ensuring that no jurisdiction has a complete and accurate picture of the driver's history. For example, if a driver is convicted of offenses in both Colorado and Utah, without the DLC or a similar agreement, Colorado officials might know only about the Colorado convictions. Because many traffic offenses contain cumulative penalties for convictions, it is essential that state officials have complete knowledge of a driver's history to make an accurate assessment of whether to license a prospective driver or to determine an appropriate penalty for additional violations. Quite simply, accurate driver records allow states to identify bad drivers and remove them from the road.

Although most states participate in the DLC, five states--Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan Tennessee and Wisconsin--are not current members. The agreement also does not encompass Canadian provinces or the states or federal government of Mexico.

The NRVC, which first became effective in 1978 in Kentucky, Minnesota and West Virginia, contains sections regarding traffic stops and the treatment of citations for traffic violations committed by out-of-state drivers. For many citations, the NRVC allows the driver to continue after a traffic stop without being required to secure an appearance in court or post collateral. For offenses that do not require a mandatory license revocation, the law enforcement officer does not take the license under the NRVC.

As with the DLC, most states participate in the NRVC. However, six statesAlaska, California, Michigan, Montana, Oregon and Wisconsin--are not current members. Unlike the DLC, the NRVC allows participation by provinces of Canada and other countries. Both the DLC and the NRVC are governed by a joint compact board composed of representatives from member states and staffed by AAMVA.

The New Driver's License Agreement

For more than a decade, AAMVA has worked to replace the two existing compacts with a new interstate agreement called the Driver's License Agreement (DLA). The new agreement is intended to merge DLC and NRVC principles and promote the concept of "one driver, one record." It also is expected to improve member compliance, which is lagging under the existing agreements.

The new DLA was developed largely without input from state elected officials. Motor vehicle administrators, under the guidance of AAMVA, authored the governing documents for the DLA, which include the agreement itself, the DLA Procedures Manual and the DLA Rules. State DLA enabling legislation, if enacted, also would govern the agreement, and AAMVA has drafted model legislation for states to consider. Throughout the DLA governing documents, AAMVA is specifically listed as the organization responsible for providing staff and other logistical support for the agreement.

DLA Goals

In its general purpose section, the DLA identifies as its primary goal to ensure that all jurisdictions participate in a reciprocal program of cooperation to promote highway safety, provide fair and impartial treatment of drivers, and implement minimum identification and security standards for driver's licenses and identification cards. Member jurisdictions support 10 principles that form the basis for the agreement. These include:

• One driver's license and one driver control record recognized by all member jurisdictions;

• Cooperation among member jurisdictions so that all drivers must comply with traffic citations, regardless of where the citation is issued;

• Reciprocal recognition of driver's licenses and traffic offenses related to highway safety;

• Use of recognized identity verification process prior to issuance of a driver's license or identification card;

• Compliance with highway safety laws as a condition of receiving or retaining a driver's license;

• Traffic offenses and identification fraud will treated as though they occurred in the jurisdiction of record for record keeping and sanctioning purposes;

• Drivers are allowed to proceed without delay after citations for certain traffic offenses, regardless of the driver's jurisdiction of record;

• Uniformity among member jurisdictions in the exchange of licensing and conviction information;

• Mutual cooperation in monitoring compliance with the DLA and in dispute resolution; and,

• Compliance with privacy laws.

In addition to the basic principles drafted into the agreement, AAMVA has identified several additional purposes for the DLA. These include:

• Uniformity among members in fraudulent document recognition training;

• Improved security and interoperability of driver license and identification documents issued by members; and,

• Improved internal control measures and auditing to ensure driver integrity of DLA requirements.

New DLA Provisions

Although the DLA is intended to replace the DLC and NRVC, it includes many provisions that are not in the existing agreements. The critical new provisions are as follows:¹

• One driver control record (DCR)--The DLA establishes the concept of one DCR for each driver. Although federal law already has established this principle for commercial drivers, the DLA endoreses the principle for all drivers.

• One jurisdiction of record (JOR) maintains the DCR--The DLC included a home state of licensee. However, a JOR is new under the DLA.

• Conviction definition--The DLA redefines "conviction" to include judgments by default or in absentia.

• Failure to comply definition--The DLA redefines "failure to comply" to include failure to answer a citation as well as failure to pay fines, penalties and costs related to a violation.

• Jurisdiction definition--The DLA defines "jurisdiction" to allow participation by a territory or province of Canada and by any state of the Republic of Mexico or the Federal District of Mexico. Under the current DLC, no foreign jurisdictions can participate. The NRVC defines jurisdiction to include provinces of Canada and other countries.

• Identity verification process--The DLA prohibits state licensing authorities from issuing a driver's license to an applicant unless the jurisdiction has used a recognized verification process to establish the applicant's identity. The DLA rules describe the processes that must be used and include a list of acceptable verification documents that can be used to establish identity.

• License issuance after a withdrawal--The DLA places greater restrictions on each jurisdiction's ability to issue a license after a withdrawal than its predecessor agreements. Under the DLC, a state licensing authority could issue a driver's license to an applicant whose license had been previously revoked after one year. Under the new DLA, the license authority may issue a driver's license to an applicant whose license had been previously revoked only after five years from the effective date of the most recent withdrawal.

• Identity card security--The DLA requires that identity cards issued by member jurisdictions meet the same security standards and require the same proof of identity processes as driver's licenses.

• Employee completion of AAMVA fraud program--The DLA requires member jurisdictions to ensure that its employees have completed the AAMVA Fraudulent Document Recognition Training Program to recognize and detect fraud at licensing centers.

• Formal fraud deterrence programs--The DLA requires member jurisdictions to develop internal controls to reduce fraud, including a formal audit plan and procedure, as a deterrent to fraud.

• Security elements in driver's license and identification cards--The DLA requires member jurisdictions to incorporate specific security and design elements into each license and identification card. The DLA Rules indicate that required elements shall be determined by AAMVA specifications.

• Different categories of membership--Unlike its predecessor agreements, the DLA allows both "pending members" and "full members." A pending member--a jurisdiction that files a declaration of intent to join within five yearsdoes not have the powers, privileges or obligations of full membership, but can participate in agreement activities and meetings.

• Authority of the governing board--The DLA gives authority to govern the agreement to a board, consisting of a chair, a vice chair, the immediate past chair, and a representative of each of the regions defined by AAMVA. The board has more power than the joint executive board that currently governs the DLC and NRVC. The DLA board can establish and amend the DLA Code, monitor compliance, resolve disputes, impose sanctions, approve exceptions to the DLA, determine whether state laws are substantially similar to the DLA Code, and officially interpret the agreement.

• Amending the agreement--Amendments are more easily made under the DLA than under the current compacts. The DLC has no amendment provision and the NRVC requires unanimous endorsement for amendment. The DLA can be amended by a vote of at least two-thirds of the member jurisdictions.

• Longer time period for reporting convictions--The DLA allows a licensing authority to report convictions and administrative actions to the JOR within 30 days. In contrast, the DLC requires reports 15 days after receipt of the conviction from the court.

• Admissibility of electronic record as evidence--The DLA states that an electronic copy of a record transmitted and received of any conviction, administrative action, driver license and identification card issuance, withdrawal or driver status is admissible in evidence in all courts and administrative proceedings without further proof.

• Agreement exceptions--The DLA allows exceptions to compliance that are not detrimental to the underlying principles of the agreement.

DLA Governance

The DLA gives authority to govern the agreement to a board, consisting of a chair, a vice chair, the immediate past chair, and a representative of each of the regions defined by AAMVA. According to a 2004 presentation made by the chair of the current DLC/NRVC Compact Executive Board, the AAMVA executive committee will work with the DLA board to oversee the agreement. An AAMVA implementation and maintenance subcommittee will support the membership and is responsible for maintenance of the security elements of the DLA.

Potential DLA Benefits

AAMVA and the motor vehicle administrators who authored the DLA have touted numerous benefits of the agreement. Overall, the DLA is intended to bring member jurisdictions closer to the goal of a single record for each driver. This could create greater assurance that nonqualified drivers will not be issued a driver's license. It also would prevent drivers from clearing their driver record by moving from one jurisdiction to another. One driver control record may have other benefits. According to AAMVA, these include:

Potential Driver Benefits

• The DLA will enhance fraud and identity theft protections.

• Uniform application procedures under the DLA will be easier for drivers to complete.

• Drivers can proceed through other jurisdictions after receiving a citation as though they are residents of that jurisdiction.

• It creates better protection of personal information.

Potential Law Enforcement Benefits

• Better records will allow officers to spend less time at traffic stops.

• Driver's license and identification cards will provide more accurate information to the officer at a stop.

• A uniform card layout will include seven security features that ensure card validity.

• Unsafe drivers will be prevented from obtaining a license.

Potential Court Benefits

• The DLA may mean greater compliance with citations and increased collection of fines and fees.

• The DLA may mean the potential for reduced license litigation due to greater consistency, standard rules of evidence and better record keeping by motor vehicle administrators.

Potential Licensing Authority Benefits

• The DLA may improve record sharing and record keeping, leading to improved problem resolution.

• All employees will be required to be trained to recognize fraudulent documents.

• Standardized proof of identity processes may mean less chance of fraud.

• The DLA may mean better detection and deterrence of fraud.

• The DLA may improve the integrity of documents and records.

Potential Benefits for Jurisdiction

• Improved highway safety.

• Standard processes facilitate reciprocity.

• Identification of individuals is protected.

• Ineligible and unlicensed drivers are not licensed.

Potential Concerns about the DLA

Although the potential benefits of the new DLA seem appealing, jurisdictions that are considering joining the agreement may want to consider the following potential concerns.

1. Not all states currently participate in the DLC and NRVC. Two states--Michigan and Wisconsin--do not participate in either agreement. Seven other states--Alaska, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon and Tennessee--are not current members of one of the agreements. Lawmakers in states that do not participate in one or both of the current agreements may have similar reservations about participation in the new DLA.

2. Participation by Canada and Mexico. The DLA changes the definition of jurisdiction from the existing DLC and allows participation by Canada and Mexico. Without federal approval, some question exists about the legality under the compact clause of the U.S. Constitution of states entering into agreements with foreign jurisdictions. In addition, lawmakers may have some privacy concerns that stem from sharing driver record information with foreign jurisdictions.

3. No overall estimate of cost. Although AAMVA has developed the DLA over a period of more than 10 years, it has conducted no study of the costs to implement the new agreement. The costs of implementing the DLA could be considerable. Jurisdictions may incur additional workload costs, membership dues to support compact staff, and new information technology (IT) expenses. Jurisdictions also will be required to enroll all motor vehicle department employees in fraud recognition training classes and will be required to pay for new security protections on all driver license and identification cards issued by the state. Although there are no overall studies of DLA costs, some motor vehicle administrators expressed concern at a joint DLC/NRVC compact meeting held in St. Louis in October, 2004. At that meeting, an official from Pennsylvania estimated that additional IT costs alone could reach $400,000 a year. An official from Texas estimated it would cost $13 million to implement the new security enhancements required by the agreement.

4. Lawful presence. The new DLA provides a list of acceptable verification documents that applicants can use to establish identity when applying for a driver's license. All the documents on the list can be obtained only through lawful presence in the United States. Under the current licensing process, the decision whether to require lawful presence for licensure is a policy decision made by each state legislature and governor. Although many states require lawful presence to obtain a license, 11 states--Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin--currently have no such requirement.² Effectively, the DLA would make a policy decision that opposes current policy in 11 states.

5. Evidence admissibility. Article XI of the DLA governs the admissibility of certain documents as evidence. Article XI Section A states that, " … a copy of a record of any conviction, administrative action, driver license and identification card issuance, withdrawal or status, transmitted and received by electronic means or other means, when certified, shall be admissible in evidence in all courts and administrative proceedings without further proof. Such evidence shall constitute proof of the facts contained therein, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Contrary evidence shall be limited to clerical and identification errors." Article XI Section B states that, " … any duplicate, photocopy, microfilm or electronically digitized copy or reproduction of a record, when satisfactorily identified, shall be deemed an original and shall be admissible in evidence in all courts or administrative proceedings without further proof."

Evidence admissibility is a decision that is made by courts or elected officials. Lawmakers who are considering DLA enabling legislation may want to consider whether the evidence admissibility section matches existing admissibility laws.

6. AAMVA processes are required throughout. The DLA lists AAMVA as the organization responsible for determining many of the procedures and training programs required by the agreement. For example, the DLA rules for Article IV of the agreement state that, " .. each member jurisdiction shall implement a training program for the recognition and detection of fraudulent documents. Such program shall include the use of standard fraud recognition materials developed and provided by AAMVA." The same rule requires data and security elements on driver license cards according to specifications developed by AAMVA. Under the agreement, member jurisdictions would by obliged to follow AAMVA options, regardless of whether there might be a cheaper or more effective alternative.

7. Many driver license and identification card design elements are specified by the DLA. Under the agreement, jurisdictions will have limited ability to make decisions regarding card design, which could lessen their ability to control card costs.

8. There is no evidence that the DLA will provide all the benefits AAMVA claims it will. Although AAMVA has long touted the DLA as a major improvement over existing agreements, a positive effect cannot be assumed. For example, even though training on fraudulent documents is required, there is no evidence that it will actually improve driver license integrity and security. Those intent on using fraudulent documents to obtain a license may find other mechanisms to circumvent the system.

9. Improper delegation of authority. Legislators who are considering the DLA may want to evaluate whether their enabling legislation improperly delegates authority to the agreement. State constitutions and preexisting state statutes may conflict with DLA provisions or place restrictions on the delegation of authority to the agreement. To avoid future legal problems, lawmakers will want to examine the DLA within the context of existing laws.

The Effect of Federal Legislation or Regulations

New federal laws may alter state driver license requirements even before states have an opportunity to consider provisions in the DLA. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 established a negotiated rulemaking process to create federal minimum standards to ensure the security of state-issued driver's licenses and personal identification cards issued by states. The negotiated rulemaking--which will include representatives from several organizations that have a stake in the issue, including NCSL and AAMVA--is scheduled to begin in 2005. However, legislation pending in Congress could terminate the negotiated rulemaking and create new, more rigid federal standards for state-issued documents.

Either the federal negotiated rulemaking process or legislation in Congress could change driver license obligations for states The current version of H.R. 418, which is pending in the U.S. Senate, would make certain driver's license standards--including the DLA--mandatory for states. If the legislation passes without amendment, state lawmakers would likely be forced to comply with DLA provisions and would have limited ability to alter the agreement. Similarly, the negotiated rulemaking process could create federal regulations with compulsory driver's license standards.

The unknown effects of federal action may give state lawmakers reason to pause as they consider current proposals to enter into the DLA. New federal laws could require participation in the DLA or could provide some alternative obligation. To best ensure compliance and avoid unnecessary debate and expense, states may want to consider waiting until final federal action is taken until they decide the most appropriate action for their jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The DLA is intended to improve highway safety and public security. Its drafters hope the agreement will enhance state driver records and improve the integrity of state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards. Many provisions contained in the agreement are not controversial and will likely meet little objection. However, state lawmakers who are asked to pass enabling legislation to join the agreement may want to consider some of the potential concerns identified in this document to determine whether the DLA is appropriate for their jurisdiction.

Contact for Additional Information
Matt Sundeen
Program Principal, Transportation
National Conference of State Legislatures
Phone: (303) 364-7700
Email: matt.sundeen@ncsl.org

Notes

1. These summaries of the new DLA provisions come from a meeting handout prepared by AAMVA in 2004 entitled Comparative Analysis of Driver License Issues.

2. At publication, legislation was pending in Utah that could change this requirement.

Back arrow, return to previous page Transportation page

Visitor counts for this page.

ncsl logo

ISBN 1-58024-389-4

National Conference of State Legislatures

Transportation

The Proposed Driver's License Agreement

An Analysis

Contents