While Michael Chertoff and the US government continues to extol the virtues of REAL-ID, states continue to step over the line of rebellion, joining the ever-increasing numbers of states who are refusing to implement REAL-ID in their state.

…the major problem with Real ID is that local DMV and law enforcement officials will have access to an unprecedented amount of sensitive information on anyone with a Real ID; scanned copies of any documents used to establish identity, like birth certificates, bank statements, pay stubs, property tax bills, and so on, not to mention driving histories from other states. Now imagine all of that data in the hands of a crooked sheriff who’s fighting off a reformist challenger in a hotly contested election. Do you really want to live in that world?

You don’t.  I don’t.  Now, California doesn’t either.  The state of California has taken a huge step away from REAL-ID, making it ready to jump off the government food train and reject REAL-ID.  California has asked for an extension, to comply with the law, however, there is no indication that they will eventually comply with the law in 2010 when the extension runs out.

This has left Montana Governor, Brian Schweitzer, declaring victory over the government.  Montana originally sent a letter to Chertoff explaining the security measures already in their driver’s licenses, to which the DHS interpreted as a request for an extension, which was granted.  This comes after the DHS had already stated that Montana ID cards would be rejected.

Schweitzer emphasized that his state’s licenses already contain holograms, secure digital photographs and a magnetic stripe on the back. But says he has no intention of sharing his state’s residents’ data with the federal government, as required by Real ID.

After the recent debacle involving people snooping into the passport information of presidential hopefuls, does anyone really believe that REAL-ID is going to be secure?

Californians, on the other hand, wondered if they were going to face patdowns at the airports similar to those that residents of Montana have endured.  They were given a reprieve when the federal government granted their extension.

“California’s request for an extension is not a commitment to implement Real ID, rather it will allow us to fully evaluate the impact of the final regulations and precede with necessary policy deliberations prior to a final decision on compliance,” DMV director George Valverde wrote.

For now, Californians can breathe easier.  They also have the ACLU, AARP and the Identity Project on their side.  Ad for rebel states, such as New Hampshire, the DHS intends to play hardball, with the possibility of rejecting their state IDs as soon as May, 2008.

The curious part of all this is that New Hampshire files for an extension, but claims they will not comply and are thus denied an extension and then threatened by the DHS.  California files for an extension, but claims that they will not comply and are given an extension.  Yet again, the federal government is harassing the little guy, hoping that they can convince California to stay in and, thus, be able to harass all the other states into compliance.

More states need to be outspoken against REAL-ID.  They need their governors to be just as loud as  Brian Schweitzer.  REAL-ID is already being shoved onto the back burner.  We need to keep up the pressure to get it there permanently.  REAL-ID isn’t about protecting us from anyone.  It’s about government control over its own citizens and its citizens need to step up and be heard.