Committee hears bill to require extra ID for drivers licensed in some states

The House Transportation Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1501, introduced by state Representative Keith Kepnick, which would require additional identification from drivers licensed in certain other states that the sponsor says do not require proof of Social Security or other federal documentation to obtain a driver’s license.

Kepnick, a Republican from District 39, told the committee the bill targets 19 states that, in his view, allow people to obtain a license without documentary proof of federal identification. “This bill basically is requiring another form of ID from these states,” Kepnick said, adding that the measure would not apply to holders of Real ID or to commercial driver’s licenses.

The bill would create an exception for federally issued credentials and list alternate acceptable documents for people whose licensing state does not verify citizenship or Social Security number. Kepnick said Minnesota is the nearest state whose practices may be affected and that the change would likely have greater impact in North Dakota’s eastern counties.

Committee members repeatedly asked practical questions about enforcement and civil liberties. Representative Johnston asked about the difference between a standard driver’s license and a Real ID; Kepnick replied that a Real ID “does have watermarks” and other security features and that a CDL is already treated as a federal credential. Representative Hendricks asked how officers in the field would know whether a passing driver’s license came from one of the 19 states; Kepnick acknowledged that law enforcement would need a list and suggested a possible grace period for drivers to produce additional paperwork.

Representatives also raised concerns about lawful travelers who do not carry birth certificates or passports and about tribal members and temporary workers who hold valid work visas. Kepnick said exemptions would cover people with federal immigration or work documents and that the committee could amend the bill to include grace periods or other protections.

No formal action was taken; the sponsor and committee members agreed to exchange more information. Kepnick said he would provide the committee with the list of states cited in his testimony and noted national debate over Real ID and federal versus state authority could affect the bill’s legal footing.

Ending: Committee members asked the sponsor to provide administrative details—particularly the list of states and suggested enforcement language—before any amendment is prepared.