[Note: For official veto message text, please see Assembly Journal of October 1, 2002, at pages 8928-29
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/govsearchables/whatsnew/Session/adj100102.pdf]
BILL NUMBER: AB 60
VETOED DATE: 09/30/2002
SEP 30 2002
To the Members of the California State Legislature:
I am returning Assembly Bill 60 and Senate Bill 804 without my
signature.
I publicly stated my willingness to provide driving privileges to
hard working, law-abiding immigrants who pay taxes and perform work
that many Americans refuse to do. Through their labor, these
immigrants confer economic benefits on the rest of society. However,
if we are to grant driver licenses to them because they are workers,
it is reasonable to require proof that they are, in fact, working.
Furthermore, the tragedy of September 11, made it abundantly clear
that the driver's license is more than just a license to drive; it is
one of the primary documents we use to identify ourselves.
Unfortunately, a driver's license was in the hands of terrorists who
attacked America on that fateful day.
For several months, I worked closely with the author of AB 60 and law
enforcement officials to develop measures required for the public
safety if we are to grant driver licenses to these immigrants. I
made it clear to all parties that these bills must contain certain
common-sense protections if we are to change the requirements for
obtaining a driver's license.
Unfortunately SB 804 does not provide the protections necessary to
sign these measures. For example, if there is an outstanding warrant
for the arrest of an applicant for treason, espionage, sabotage,
homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, drug trafficking, flight
escape, or smuggling, he or she is not disqualified from getting a
license.
SB 804 attempted to provide a few of the necessary protections. But
even those few are threatened. I insisted that AB 60 and SB 804 be
double-jointed so they would rise and fall together. But as written,
they do not. Threatened lawsuits could destroy the meager
protections of SB 804, while leaving only AB 60, which has none of
those protections. That is unacceptable.
As noted, SB 804's "protections" are insufficient for several
additional reasons.
1) Valid proof of identify is not required. I insisted that an
applicant show a valid birth certificate or some other identification
of equal validity. But under SB 804, less reliable documents are
acceptable. An applicant could simply provide two forms of
identification from a list that includes a foreign voter registration
card, an international driver's license or other documents issued by
a foreign government. It is unknown what identity verification
underlies the issuance of these docu ments in foreign countries.
And, according to the Department of Motor Vehicles, several web sites
offer international driver licenses over the Internet without any
verification of identity or licensing status.
2) Many egregious, criminal convictions are ignored. I insisted
that a person who was convicted of offenses that would preclude him
or her from being in this country legally should not be licensed.
But SB 804 did not do that. So, for example, a person who has been
convicted of two crimes and imprisoned for five years or more could
not get legal immigration status, but could get a driver's license.
3) DMV is not given the necessary ability to revoke a license. These
bills do not give DMV the ability to revoke the driver's license of
a person whose application for legal presence is rejected by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. Since a premise of the
program is to permit people who are in the process of gaining legal
presence to obtain a driver's license, I required that there be a way
to revoke the license if they are no longer eligible.
4) DMV cannot perform background checks when a license is renewed.
These bills do not authorize DMV to do background checks or perform
the necessary inquiry and verification when a licensee seeks to renew
a license. Thus, we might be re-licensing felons or those who have
lost legal status. This was a critical point, which I made
repeatedly.
5) There is no requirement that the applicant be working here.
Although the whole premise of the bill was to provide licenses to
those who are working, there is (contrary to my requests) no actual
requirement that an applicant prove that. Instead, SB 804 allows an
applicant simply to "affirm" that he or she is employed and to show a
document, such as a utility bill, that may or may not prove that.
I agreed to sign AB 60 if its companion measure, SB 804, provided
adequate assurance that an applicant lived and worked in California
for fifteen months over the last three years and passed a background
check that provided all the protections described above. It is
regrettable that the provisions of SB 804 fall short of meeting these
requirements, making it impossible for me to sign either bill into
law.
For these reasons, I must veto AB 60 and SB 804. However, I remain
willing to sign legislation that meets all of the requirements stated
above.
Sincerely,
GRAY DAVIS
REJECTED VERSION
To the Members of the California State Legislature:
I am returning Assembly Bill 60 and Senate Bill 804 without my
signature.
I publicly stated my desire to provide driving privileges to hard
working, law-abiding immigrants who pay taxes and perform work that
many Americans refuse to do. Through their labor, these immigrants
are essentially conferring economic benefits on the rest of society.
[Without them, prices for the food and services they provide would
be much higher.]
But the tragedy of September 11 made it abundantly clear that the
driver license is more than just a license to drive. It is the
primary identification document which, unfortunately, was in the
hands of each of the terrorists who attacked America on that fateful
day. Therefore, we there must be common-sense measures to strengthen
the security of any new driver licensing process. And if we are to
grant driver licenses to them because they are workers, it is
reasonable to require proof that th ey are in fact working. As I
will discuss later, these measures fail to meet these requirements.
For several months, I worked closely with the author and law
enforcement officials to determine how best to expand the driver
licensing privilege while enhancing security and insuring we are
licensing only those who contribute to the economy. As a result of
those discussions, I told both opponents and proponents that we need
at certain common-sense protections, if we are to expand the
granting of driver licenses.
Unfortunately these bills do not do that. For example, under SB 804,
if there is an outstanding warrant for the arrest of an applicant
for treason, espionage, sabotage, sedition, homicide, kidnapping,
sexual assault, drug trafficking, sex offenses, flight escape, or
smuggling, that applicant is not disqualified from getting a license.
And, when it came time to renew that license the DMV would not be
able to check to see if the applicant has developed such a criminal
record.
AB 60 contains none of the necessary protections; SB 804 intended to
contain a few. But even those few -- which are weak and poorly
drafted -- are threatened, since the bills are not linked. The two
measures must rise and fall together, but as written, they do not.
Threatened lawsuits could destroy the meager protections of SB 804,
leaving only AB 60 in effect. Since AB 60 provides none of the
necessary protections, it is unacceptable standing alone.
As noted, SB 804's "protections" are insufficient. In addition to
the points stated above, a person who was convicted of offenses that
would preclude him or her from entering this country lawfully, would
not be prevented from obtaining a driver license. For example,
federal law prohibits entry into this country to those who have
violated drug laws. It also prohibits entry of those who have two
convictions and have been imprisoned for five years or more. SB 804
does not protect against that -- or many other crimes that bar entry
under federal law.
Similarly, under these bills, one could get a license without having
to show a birth certificate, or some other identification of equal
validity. Instead it allows an applicant to provide two forms of
identification from a list that includes a foreign voter registration
card, an international driver's license or other documents issued by
a foreign government. It is unknown if and what identity
verification measures exist for these documents in foreign countries.
According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, several web sites
offer international driver licenses over the Internet without any
verification of identity or licensing status.
In addition, if the INS determined a licensee was not legally
present, the DMV would not necessarily know to revoke the license. SB
804 permits DMV to verify the applicant's immigration status using
only the SAVE system as outlined in subsection (d) of Section 1320b-7
of Title 24. The SAVE system only provides information about
individuals who have legal status; no information is available
through this process regarding persons applying for or denied legal
status. Thus, DMV is hindered in its ability to determine if a
licensee's application for legal status is rejected.
And, although the whole premise of the bill was to provide licenses
to those who are working, there is no actual requirement that an
applicant prove that. Instead, SB 804 allows an applicant simply to
"affirm" that he or she is employed and to show a document, such as a
utility bill, that may or may not prove that.
One, we must not issue a license to an applicant who has been
convicted of a crime that would preclude his or her legal presence in
this country. If one has committed such a serious crime, we should
not enable that person to commit more unlawful acts.
Two, we must not issue a license to an applicant wanted by law
enforcement for any crime listed in the California Department of
Justice Wanted Persons System. If there is such a warrant out for a
person's arrest, we should apprehend that person, not make it easier
to flee from justice.
Three, since AB 60 was premised, in part, on enabling legal residents
to be able to drive to work, we should require some proof that the
applicant has lived and worked in California for at least 15 months
during the three years preceding the application.
Four, an applicant should show a copy of his or her birth certificate
or an equivalent document. In our society, a driver's license
serves as a key piece of identification. To insure that we do not
unwittingly abet fraud, we should require an applicant to show solid
evidence of his or her identity before being issued a license.
Five, we must give the DMV the ability to revoke a driver's license
if the Immigration and Naturalization Service determines an applicant
does not have a legal presence in this country. Since a premise of
the program is to permit people who are legally present to obtain a
driver's license, there must be a way to revoke the license if they
are no longer legally present.
Six, we must ensure that DMV has the right to do the same background
check and perform the same inquiry and verification when a person
seeks to renew his or her license. Otherwise, we might be
re-licensing felons or those who have lost legal status.
In addition, I made it clear that any companion bill would have to
have a non-severability clause to ensure it operates together with AB
60. The whole point of the companion measure is to provide
necessary safeguards. It would be dangerous to permit AB 60 to
survive were some provisions of the companion measure declared
invalid.
The Legislature's response was SB 804. Regrettably, SB 804 was
hastily drafted in the final hours of the two-year legislative
session. It omits and changes many of the key requirements, noted
above, that are essential for the effective implementation of both AB
60 and SB 804. Specifically:
One, SB 804 may allow an applicant who has been convicted of a crime
that would preclude legal presence to receive a license. For
example, federal law prohibits entry into this country to those who
have violated drug laws. It also prohibits entry of those who have
two convictions and have been imprisoned for five years or more. SB
804 does not protect against that -- or many other crimes that bar
entry under federal law.
Two, SB 804 does not prevent individuals wanted by law enforcement
from obtaining licenses. SB 804 allows DOJ to "advise" DMV if an
applicant has an outstanding warrant for a limited number of crimes,
but it cannot be used to prohibit the issuance of a license to the
wanted applicant. Whether this was advertent or simply poor
drafting, it is a significant flaw in SB 804.
Three, SB 804 merely requires an applicant to "affirm" that he or she
has met the 15-month working and living requirement but it does not
require documentary evidence. Instead, an applicant is separately
required to provide at least one of nine documents, none of which
necessarily covers a 15-month period and most of which fail to
evidence employment. So, for example, an applicant could submit just
a current utility bill and meet the test of SB 804. That bill would
not document 15 months of residence and would have no bearing on the
question of employment.
Four, SB 804 eliminates the birth certificate as the primary
identification document. Instead it allows an applicant to provide
two forms of identification from a list that includes a foreign voter
registration card, an international driver's license or other
documents issued by a foreign government. It is unknown if and what
identity verification measures exist for these documents in foreign
countries. According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, several
web sites offer international driv er licenses over the Internet
without any verification of identity or licensing status. Thus, this
provision in SB 804 falls short of my intent to strengthen the
process to prevent identity theft.
Five, SB 804 permits DMV to verify the applicant's immigration status
using only the SAVE system as outlined in subsection (d) of Section
1320b-7 of Title 24. The SAVE system only provides information about
individuals who have legal status; no information is available
through this process regarding persons applying for or denied legal
status. Thus, DMV is hindered in its ability to determine if a
licensee's application for legal status is rejected.
Six, SB 804 does not authorize DMV to do background checks or perform
the necessary inquiry and verification when a licensee seeks to
renew a license. That is unacceptable.
Finally, despite repeated requests, SB 804 does not include a
non-severability clause that would ensure the two bills are
implemented together to stand as a package.
I agreed to sign AB 60 if its companion measure, SB 804, applied to
individuals with established roots in California and contained
adequate security measures. It is regrettable that the provisions of
SB 804 fall short of meeting these requirements, making it
impossible for me to sign either bill into law.
For these reasons, I must veto AB 60 and SB 804.
Sincerely,
GRAY DAVIS
VERSION 2