Whether REAL ID or '3-in-1’, enhanced licenses extend government’s reach into our daily lives

A showdown is officially in place between the U.S. Homeland Security Department and at least 17 states, including Arizona, over whether to turn our driver’s licenses into the rough equivalent of national identification cards.

We would like for the states to win this argument. But we hope our elected officials recognize the tremendous risk to our regional economy and the serious inconveniences for everyone if the federal government doesn’t back down.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Friday released proposed rules to enforce the 2005 REAL ID law, passed in an effort to improve reliability and reduce fraudulent use of state driver’s licenses. Basically, anyone under 50 would have to get upgraded driver’s licenses within six years, and the IDs would have to be embedded with information that could be verified electronically by every state and various federal agencies.

People who don’t have these upgraded licenses eventually would be subject to new restrictions nationwide such as extraordinary security measures at airports and forbidden from entering many federal buildings.

Capitol Media Services reported Friday that states unable to comply with the rules by May 11 would be able to request waivers, as long as they promise to do so at some point. Gov. Janet Napolitano certainly wants to do that. She has even signed an agreement with Chertoff to create a special “3-in-1” license that would meet the REAL ID mandate and also serve as a U.S. passport and proof of legal residency to work here.

But many Arizona lawmakers oppose the “3-in-1” license and REAL ID in general as the critical step toward creating a national identification card.

Napolitano has heard the concerns of privacy advocates, and emphasized in her State of the State address that a “3-in-1” driver’s license would be entirely voluntary.

In the past, our attempts to explain the role of reliable identification in the context of the immigration debate has confused some people. So let us be clear. We philosophically oppose the REAL ID law as allowing the national government to peer even deeper into our lives when less onerous options sponsored by individual states likely would work. We share the concerns of Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, that a voluntary “3-in-1” license eventually could become mandatory to satisfy the forces that brought about the REAL ID law in the first place.

But we also recognize that state driver’s licenses already have become dependable identification for most people. Arizona and other states could bolster their case against REAL ID if they upgraded driver’s licenses on their own to reduce fraud, or found a way to turn back time to make them unnecessary to write checks, to check out movies and to board airplanes.