Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dmv Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances bill restricting DMV disclosure of driving-privilege-card data to federal authorities
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee voted to release House Bill 60, sponsored by Representative Lynn, which would limit DMV disclosures of driving-privilege-card records to federal authorities unless a court order is presented or the attorney general approves.
Get email alerts on the Dmv Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The House Judiciary Committee voted to release House Bill 60, sponsored by Representative Lynn, which would limit when the Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles may disclose driving-privilege-card applicant and holder records to federal authorities.
Representative Lynn told the committee the bill was intended to protect applicants for driving-privilege cards — a class of applicants that often includes undocumented residents — from having their DMV records turned over to federal immigration authorities without a court order or the express permission of the Delaware attorney general. "What this bill does is it prevents the Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles and Department of Transportation from releasing the database of individuals who have applied for and received driving privileges card cards to the federal government without either a valid court order or permission from the Delaware attorney general," Lynn said.
Supporters, including the ACLU of Delaware, said the measure would preserve confidence that applicants can undergo vision and driving tests, obtain insurance and drive legally without fearing automatic federal access to their identifying information. "By guaranteeing that this information stays safe, it also means that undocumented immigrants can continue to apply for this card with confidence," said Jovan Rich, policy and advocacy director for the ACLU of Delaware.
State officials and industry witnesses urged changes or flagged legal complications. Christy Ianniely of the Delaware Department of Justice said the attorney general’s office represents state agencies, so a provision requiring AG approval before disclosure could create conflicts in which the AG both denies permission and then defends the state in court. The department also warned of potential federal preemption and cited similar "green light" laws in other states that have drawn federal responses.
The Consumer Data Industry Association, represented by Chris DiPietro, asked the committee to retain a statutory "shall" in one line of the bill (line 34) because reporting and data access under federal law and the Driver Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) interact with state procedures; changing the word to "may" could impede lawful access that third parties rely on for safety recalls, consumer protection and other functions.
Representative Lynn said he had debated whether to require a court order only, or to include the attorney general as a gatekeeper. He said the intent of giving the attorney general notice or authority is to ensure due process: if a federal court order arrives that could have sweeping consequences for Delaware residents, the AG should have an opportunity to respond. "If it is a federal court order, my express aim is for the attorney general's office to be noticed and have an opportunity to reply so that they can protect the due process interests of Delaware residents," Lynn said.
The ACLU urged the bill's release, saying it would protect families and improve road safety by encouraging participation in the driving-privilege-card program. The Department of Justice and other state witnesses asked to work with the sponsor to address conflict-of-interest and preemption concerns.
The committee approved a motion to release the bill. Representative Romer moved to release; Representative Phillips seconded. On the roll call, the bill passed for release with multiple affirmative votes and one recorded negative vote from Representative Shupe.
Next steps: the sponsor said he will walk the bill for additional signatures; the committee asked staff and counsel to coordinate with the Department of Justice and affected stakeholders to address the technical and preemption issues raised during testimony.
