Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Real Id Operator Privilege topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conference panel agrees to clarify DMV language on Real ID and operator's-privilege cards
Summary
Legislative counsel presented DMV-drafted language clarifying that informing applicants about operator's-privilege cards is subject to federal law; DMV staff said the change codifies current practice. Committees asked for drafting alternatives and agreed to add the language to the next draft.
Legislative counsel presented revised language clarifying how the Department of Motor Vehicles should inform applicants who cannot or will not comply with the federal Real ID Act about alternatives such as an operator’s-privilege card or a non‑driver ID.
The clarification matters because the DMV told the committee it has encountered instances where federal checks flagged fraudulent documents or individuals without legal immigration status. Those cases, the DMV said, require careful coordination with federal law. "So this is not changing anything that we're doing. This is actually solidifying what we're currently doing," said Aaron Volley, DMV staff, during the meeting.
The draft the counsel displayed would add the phrase "to the extent permitted by federal law" and change wording such as "shall" to less rigid terms and "obtaining" to "applying for." The language as read into the record said it would make clear that "it is the intent of the General Assembly that the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, to the extent permitted by federal law, ensures that any individual who is unable to or does not wish to comply with the requirements of the Real ID Act continues to be informed of the option of applying for an operator's privilege card pursuant to the provisions of 23 V.S.A. §603(f) or a non‑driver identification card pursuant to the provisions of 23 V.S.A. §115." (Text read by legislative counsel.)
Committee members asked for the exact drafting to be put in the next conference draft and said they were comfortable with the DMV’s clarification that the change codifies current practice rather than creating a new procedural duty. Legislative counsel said he would draft two alternatives — one that adds a limiting phrase and one that removes the potentially duplicative maintenance authority from the definition elsewhere in the bill — and circulate them for the next meeting.
No formal vote was taken during the session. Staff were directed to include the DMV’s proposed language in the next conference draft and to circulate the alternative wordings for committee review before reconvening.
