Thread: Lawsuit questions constitutionality of drivers license law

Lawsuit questions constitutionality of drivers license law
By Tracy M. Neal Staff Writer // tracyn@nwanews.com

Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2008

Email this story | Printer-friendly version

BENTONVILLE - A lawsuit is challenging the constitutionality of an Arkansas law requiring people to provide information about their immigration status and their Social Security number in order to get a driver's license or identification card.

John Brown University Professor Donald Balla filed the suit Friday in Benton County Circuit Court against the state. The plaintiffs are listed as John and Jane Doe and their 15-year-old son Junior Doe.

The suit states the Does were born in another country and migrated to the United States 12 years ago. They do not have documents proving them to have legal immigrant or nonimmigrant status in the country.

The suit seeks to recover Jane Doe's driver's license; prevent the eventual forfeiture of Joe Doe's license; and the eventual denial of Junior Doe's license.

Proof of a person's Social Security number and evidence of a person's legal status are two of the requirements of the Driver's License Security and Modernization Act regarding the renewal, duplication or reissuance of a driver's license or identification card.

According to the suit, John Doe and Jane Doe have had valid legal driver's licenses in Arkansas for the past 10 to 11 years. Jane Doe could not renew her license after she failed to present a Social Security number and evidence of her legal status.

John Doe's license is up for renewal and he will also be denied a driver's license, the suit states.

The suit claims the requirements are a violation of the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution. The suit claims that the act imposes the punishment of the loss of driver's license without any fair proceedings. The suit also claims the act unfairly places individuals as being in the country illegally.
The suit is assigned to Circuit Judge Jay Finch.

http://nwanews.com/bcdr/News/62128/

The suit claims the requirements are a violation of the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution. The suit claims that the act imposes the punishment of the loss of driver's license without any fair proceedings. The suit also claims the act unfairly places individuals as being in the country illegally.

There already is a lawful means for someone from a foreign country to legally drive in the US. That means is to obtain an international driving permit in one's own country and then attach it to the existing license from home. This is recognized by the United States which is signatory to an international treaty.

Judge Finch, "the matter is decided." It has been provided for by
international treaty. Case closed.

This is a very important case---for it could set a precedent aganst similar stautes and policies. Please consider sending an "amicus curiae" brief (friend of the court) to the court hearing this case.

Anyone who drives in a state over a set period of time is supposed to have an instate ID. The procedure that you mention would not help someone violating immigration law for a decade.

Nor should it

The suit claims the requirements are a violation of the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution. The suit claims that the act imposes the punishment of the loss of driver's license without any fair proceedings. The suit also claims the act unfairly places individuals as being in the country illegally.

Why aren't they charged with obtaining driver's licenses fraudently?
Did Mr. and Mrs. Doe use their driver's licenses to register to vote and did they vote?
People lose their driver's licenses in other situtations like a change in health status.
This 'act' does not unfairly place these individuals as being in the country illegally--they did that themselves when they illegally entered this country or overstayed their visas.

Why can't ICE pick them up and deport them--they are self-admitted illegal aliens?

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution generally requires states to recognize out-of-state court judgments. But the Constitution otherwise leaves each state with the authority to decide who is licensed to do what within that state.


This reeks of foreign consulate interference.

Originally Posted by Richard

Anyone who drives in a state over a set period of time is supposed to have an instate ID. The procedure that you mention would not help someone violating immigration law for a decade.

Nor should it

What are you talking about Richard? I don't know if you were referring to my comment or not---but---when I say the matter is decided that means that this judge does not have to make new law and rule in the Does' favor. There are already provisions which the US would recognize to give the Does right, and they are not following those.

Maybe you would llike to take a crack as to whether this law agrees with the US Constitution?