[Note:  For official veto message text, please see Senate Journal of October 1, 2002, at pages 6223-24
<ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/senate-journal/sen-journal-0x-20021001-6163.PDF>]
 

  BILL NUMBER:  SB 804
  VETOED	DATE: 09/30/2002




SEP 30 2002

To the Members of the California State Legislature:

I am returning Senate Bill 804 and Assembly Bill 60 without my
signature.

Assembly Bill 60 is an enrolled bill which allows individuals to
obtain driver licenses even though they do not have social security
numbers or proof that their presence in this country is authorized by
federal law.  I had hoped to sign it.

But the tragedy of September 11 showed that AB 60 could not be signed
alone.  There must also be a companion bill that includes
common-sense measures to strengthen the security of this new driver
licensing process.  For several months, I worked closely with the
author and law enforcement officials to determine what is needed if
we are to have both the privilege granted by AB 60 and the security
needed to protect all our freedoms.  I told both opponents and
proponents that we need at least six k ey, common-sense protections,
if we are to expand the granting of driver licenses.

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