By John Q. Hosedrinker 
West Virginia Delegates Anders and Kimble have introduced House Bill 5514, proposing that state residents be exempt from mandatory Real ID requirements. The bill asserts that the Real ID Act of 2005 imposes unnecessary costs and inconveniences on citizens, and potentially infringes upon the Tenth Amendment. If passed, the Division of Motor Vehicles would cease mandatory Real ID implementation and report any federal attempts to enforce it, though residents could still voluntarily obtain a Real ID. This measure comes as Real IDs become a federal requirement for domestic air travel and entry into federal facilities starting in May 2025.
Read the original article here
A new legislative proposal has emerged in West Virginia that could exempt its residents from the federal Real ID requirements. This development is quite intriguing, especially considering the source: a bill introduced by two Republican lawmakers in a state often considered reliably Republican. It raises a lot of questions about how states can navigate federal mandates and what this specific exemption might signify for West Virginia and its citizens.
At its core, the debate seems to hinge on the perceived burdens of the Real ID Act. The rationale behind this proposed exemption is that the Real ID Act is viewed as a source of unnecessary expense and inconvenience for West Virginians. Furthermore, the bill reportedly posits that the Act infringes upon the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves certain powers to the states. If these arguments hold true for West Virginia, it suggests that many other states could potentially make similar claims.
This move by West Virginia Republicans brings to the forefront a discussion about the broader implications of identification requirements, particularly in the context of voting. There’s a sentiment that perhaps this is a moment of realization, a Republican “epiphany,” that stricter identification measures, such as those potentially enforced by the SAVE Act (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements), could inadvertently make it more challenging for their own constituents to vote. This raises the question of whether a singular, federally mandated form of identification like the Real ID is truly helpful for everyone, or if its absence, or a less stringent state alternative, might actually ease participation.
The timing of this bill also sparks conversation, especially in light of shifting political landscapes and voter sentiments. For some who supported immigration crackdowns, there’s a growing unease as the enforcement of these policies begins to impact family members, leading to unexpected deportations. Similarly, those who voted for a platform promising to eliminate government “waste and fraud” might now find themselves questioning if they themselves are considered part of that “waste.” The idea of government efficiency and debt reduction, once rallying cries, now seem to be met with the reality that certain individuals or groups, perhaps even the voters themselves, could be subjected to scrutiny or seen as a drain on resources.
Moreover, the narrative around receiving public assistance and international trade also seems to be playing into the broader discussion. Some who supported the idea of removing “freeloaders” from public assistance might be surprised to learn that close family members are in that category. Similarly, the enthusiasm for tariffs on goods from countries like China has led to some unexpected personal connections, with individuals finding themselves unexpectedly linked to those very nations. This creates a strange dissonance where policies enacted with broad intentions might have very personal and surprising ramifications for individuals.
The notion of “fraudulently” voting and questioning citizenship status is also a significant point of contention. If West Virginia residents are exempted from the Real ID, and subsequently face difficulties in proving their identity for federal purposes, it begs the question of how their citizenship and voting eligibility will be verified. This leads to a somewhat ironic situation where a state might be pushing back against a federal identification standard, only to potentially face more complex hurdles in verifying the very qualifications for participation in the democratic process. The example of JD Vance, born James Donald Bowman, highlights how names and documentation can become complex, potentially impacting even well-known figures’ ability to meet certain identification requirements.
The argument that the Real ID Act causes “unnecessary expense and inconvenience” and violates the Tenth Amendment has broad appeal. If this logic is sound, then every state could potentially seek similar exemptions. The contradiction arises when juxtaposing this with the common assertion that obtaining identification is a simple matter, and that those who need it for activities like flying or banking should readily acquire it. It also seems to present a double standard, where the Republican party might advocate for stringent voter ID laws while simultaneously arguing that federal identification mandates are burdensome.
This proposed exemption could be seen as a strategic move to protect certain demographics from the potential impacts of the SAVE Act. With a lower percentage of residents in many “red states” holding passports compared to other regions, the burden of a stricter federal ID could disproportionately affect them. The accusation of “in your face corruption” suggests a belief that these legislative maneuvers are designed to suppress votes rather than genuinely address security or convenience concerns. The idea is that when policy wins are not achievable, vote suppression becomes the alternative.
The practical implications of such an exemption are also being discussed. If West Virginia maintains non-Real ID compliant cards, it raises questions about how these residents will navigate federal requirements, such as boarding airplanes or entering federal buildings. While some states already offer non-Real ID compliant options alongside Real ID-compliant ones, the complete exemption proposed in West Virginia is a more significant departure. The thought of telling someone they need a passport just to visit a neighboring state like Ohio underscores the potential friction this could create.
There’s a cynical view that this is simply copying what other states are already doing, with many offering standard driver’s licenses that are not Real ID compliant. The fact that some individuals already rely on passports for air travel, linking them to programs like PreCheck, further complicates the necessity of the Real ID for everyone. The idea that “why do they never leave the state?” is a somewhat dismissive comment, but it touches upon the perception that the needs of these residents might be localized.
The idea that the goalposts will be moved regarding who the SAVE Act affects is a prediction of further political maneuvering. The fundamental question remains: does a state have the authority to declare a federal law inapplicable to its residents? The interplay between federal and state authority is complex, and this situation highlights the ongoing tension. While states can issue their own IDs, federal law dictates what is acceptable for federally regulated activities.
The proposition that a significant portion of West Virginia’s population relies on federal aid is presented as proof of their citizenship, yet it’s juxtaposed with the notion that they might face voting restrictions. The criticism is sharp, labeling the state’s decision-making as “horrible” and welcoming the potential decrease in voting participation from those deemed problematic. However, there’s also a counterargument that a Real ID is still a more affordable option than a passport, and that the rest of the country will still require it, rendering the West Virginia exemption largely symbolic.
The concept of a “safe space” is ironically invoked, suggesting that a state with a perceived lack of demographic diversity might actually benefit from stricter identification. The acknowledgment that many West Virginians might lack the necessary documents for a Real ID, and the inherent difficulty they face in obtaining them, points to a deeper systemic issue. This lack of documentation hinders them in various aspects of modern life, from banking to basic digital literacy. The argument is that enforcing Real ID, while potentially angering people in the short term, could actually benefit them long-term by pushing them to acquire essential documents.
The idea that federal laws don’t apply to certain states is met with disbelief, and the potential for conflict at airports and federal buildings is highlighted. The comparison to Wisconsin, which allows for standard driver’s licenses without Real ID compliance, suggests that West Virginia’s move is not entirely unprecedented, though the broader context and political motivations might differ. The notion that a Real ID is not definitive proof of citizenship, but rather of legal status in the U.S., adds another layer to the discussion, especially when considering voting eligibility requirements.
The comparison to the “travel ID” in Arizona, which resulted from similar debates, underscores the contentious nature of these identification laws. The idea that libraries might become inaccessible without a Real ID further illustrates the far-reaching consequences of such mandates. A personal anecdote about the difficulty of updating a driver’s license after a divorce, due to missing historical documents, resonates with the challenges many face in complying with strict identification requirements. This raises a question about the consistency of arguments, particularly when some groups advocate for strict voter ID laws while simultaneously pushing back against federal identification mandates as burdensome.
The assertion that this bill is a “political campaign promise that will never be honored” suggests skepticism about its eventual implementation. There’s a sense that Republicans are awakening to the fact that their rural constituents might struggle with the documentation needed for Real ID, echoing historical concerns about literacy tests and poll taxes, which were deemed unconstitutional. The speculation about who holds more passports, Democrats or Republicans, and the implications for international travel, adds a demographic dimension to the debate.
The somewhat provocative observation about West Virginians marrying cousins or sisters, thus maintaining consistent last names, suggests a perceived lack of demographic diversity and a simplistic view of identity documentation. However, the underlying issue remains: how to accurately verify citizenship and legal status. The conclusion that West Virginia might not have much voting participation as a result of these decisions is a harsh, albeit direct, assessment. Nevertheless, there are voices that view this bill as a positive step, a moment of “common sense” in a often politically charged landscape.
There’s a strong argument that the SAVE Act, if it includes requirements for a Real ID or passport for voting, could be unconstitutional, potentially violating the 24th Amendment by acting as a poll tax. The prediction that the Republican party, if they lose an election, will challenge the validity of votes cast under these conditions, citing fraud, is a grim forecast of potential political conflict. This scenario paints a picture of a system where elections could be contested not on the merits of policies, but on the technicalities of identification and the interpretation of laws.
The question of how a state can exempt itself from federal law is met with the reminder that federal law *can* set requirements for federally regulated settings, like airports. However, states still retain authority over their own ID issuance standards. This bill, it’s noted, doesn’t prevent West Virginians from obtaining a Real ID-compliant ID; it simply means they can also opt for a non-compliant one. The reference to *Brown v. Board of Education* suggests a historical parallel to legal battles over equality and rights.
Finally, the concept of conservatism is defined as a proposition where certain groups are protected by law while others are bound by it, highlighting concerns about fairness and equal application of the law. The simple question, “If you can’t read the laws, how you supposed to follow them?” speaks to the fundamental challenge of complex legal requirements for citizens. The mention of ICE further contextualizes the broader anxieties surrounding immigration enforcement and identification.