By the end of 2015, more than 1.9 million Californians, many of who whom are unemployed, disabled or homeless, had suspended licenses for failure to appear or failure to pay on citations, according to data provided by the coalition of groups, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California.

During that time period, there were nearly 33,000 suspended licenses in Solano County for a combination of failure to pay and failure to appear in court, which is about 7.75% of the county’s total population. And more than 11,000 of those suspensions were solely for failure to pay, the coalition wrote in a letter on Tuesday to the Hon. Robert C. Fracchia, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Solano County.

Snowball effect

In many instances, drivers receive an initial fine for some violation, with lots of additional fees tacked on. What was a $100 fine could be several hundred dollars and only swelling from there, sometimes escalating to thousands as payment is not made. This often leads to a suspension, which limits the driver’s ability to get to work and perpetuates the problem, the coalition argued.

“These non-safety related suspensions make it harder for people to get and keep jobs, harm credit ratings, increase county financial burdens in support of health and welfare and make it less likely that the court fines and fees will ever get paid,” the coalition wrote. “For low-income and indigent drivers, fines and fees create an insurmountable obstacle to the reinstatement of a driver’s license.”

Correlation to poverty 

Data shows a strong correlation between high poverty rates and high suspension rates in the bay area.

The Vehicle Code permits suspension for failure to pay only if the driver does so “willfully,” which the group argued shouldn’t include “indigence or financial difficulties.” The group continued that drivers should be afforded due process protections, meaning drivers should be “heard on the element of ‘willfulness’ and their ability to pay.”

Demands

The coalition is asking that Solano County Superior Court cease the practice of suspending licenses for unpaid fines.

But assuming the court doesn’t immediately comply, the coalition demands the court give the offending drivers notification of the total amount of fines and fees due, of his or her right to a judicial determination of ability to pay, of any payment options available (including an installment plan) and of the possibility that the driver’s license may be suspended.

Other efforts

Last month, the group sent a similar letter to the San Mateo County Superior Court.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and the Western Center on Law and Poverty are working with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California in these efforts.

“California issued more than a half-million driver’s licenses under a new law granting the identifying documents to immigrants who may be in the country illegally,” the Associated Press noted. “The Department of Motor Vehicles announced Wednesday that 605,000 licenses were issued since AB60 took effect last January. That’s out of 830,000 applications.”

The Orange County Register reported that reaching and processing that group would cost an estimated $141 million spread over three years. “Seniors were particularly hard hit because anyone over 70 has to appear in person at a DMV office to have a license renewed,” according to the Register. But 76-year-old Kent Moore told the Register that he had “mixed feelings” about spending hours at the Costa Mesa DMV despite holding an appointment. “These folks have jobs. And they support families. If they go through the credential process, they shouldn’t be denied,” he said. “But I paid my dues. I’ve been a model citizen. I don’t feel I should have to wait in line for hours, behind newly arrived people who are here illegally.”

No residency permits

Although opposition to the licensing plan has been steady, it has not produced a groundswell strong enough to roll back the problem. But a proposed initiative that would have ushered in a residence permit system for those who unlawfully entered and remained in the state failed to collect enough signatures to meet the requirements for inclusion on the ballot this election year. The so-called California Immigration Reform Act “would also have created a new state department to administer the permit system, require permit holders to pay state income taxes and make permit holders eligible for certain public benefits,” MyNewsLA noted. “The initiative would also have prohibited state and local governments from using public funds to support or otherwise participate in federal immigration enforcement against permit holders.”

Immigration has remained a sharply divisive issue, with state officials seeking to pursue an accommodating course while many residents remain on edge. Late last month, the Golden State was virtually alone in responding favorably to the federal government’s request for help in housing immigrant children on their own. “California and Virginia told the National Guard Bureau they have facilities that could be used but they would require additional funding if asked to meet federal requirements,” according to the Associated Press. California Guard spokesman Brandon Honig told the AP that “all state facilities would require work for fencing or other items to meet the requirements.”

Raid fears

But this month, passions have run high amid a spate of federal immigration raids both real and imagined. In events that sent tremors through California politics, “Democrats, led by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, have protested a number of raids carried out in southern states by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers against illegal immigrants from Central America — 121 adults and children who had been ordered to leave the country by a judge,” ABC News reported. “Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, who has been in constant communication with White House officials and attended the Tuesday meeting with the White House council, said she was not aware of any imminent ‘pause’ to the operations.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had predicted a reprieve, although he couldn’t speak to when the White House might announce it, according to The Hill.

Rumors quickly caught fire in California that deportation raids were underway on the west coast too. As Fusion noted, “there were multiple reports of immigration officials lingering in front of a San Francisco elementary school. Tweets, Facebook updates, and even Instagram posts reported immigration checkpoints at grocery stores all over the Bay Area. There were also reports of immigration agents rounding up day laborers at a Home Depot in Hayward. But all of the reports turned out to be false, according to immigration officials and other social media users who went looking for the raids with the intent to share pictures and video.”

Photo Credit: gizmodo.com

Amid fears of travel debacles and administrative nightmares, the federal government gave California a last-minute extension to become compliant with new nationwide ID requirements.

At the mercy of the Department of Homeland Security, California had joined a number of states in dragging its feet on the new rules, meant to make drivers licenses more uniform and secure. “The latest actions by the department granted compliance extensions to California, Alaska, South Carolina and New Jersey until Oct. 10, 2016,” according to Quartz. “With these extensions, 22 states are now exempt until that date from the security requirements, known as Real ID. New Mexico and Washington state have exemptions that last through Jan. 10, and have yet to be granted extensions.”

The grab bag of states reluctant to comply with the regulations revealed two sets of political quirks. Firstly, although DHS actually lacks the legal power to enforce compliance, it has relied on a variety of regulatory carrots and sticks to sway most states. “In October, it began requiring that visitors to military bases, nuclear plants and federal facilities produce a driver’s license from a state that complies with the law, or show another form of government ID, like a passport,” the New York Times reported. “But the biggest leverage the government has over the states is commercial air travel.”

“The Department of Homeland Security said it would provide a schedule by the end of this year for when airport screeners would start accepting only driver’s licenses that complied with federal standards. It said that 120 days’ notice would be given before starting to enforce the law at airports.”

Nationwide pushback

That move confirmed the fears of personal privacy and civil liberty advocates, who have long warned of a federal drive toward an effectual national ID card. Others have focused in on the broader inefficiencies of the Transportation Security Administration, which has endured a string of high-profile scandals and failures in recent years. “We already know that Real ID noncompliance has no effect on airport security, just as we know that TSA body scanners and screening procedures don’t work. Last year, screeners had a 95 percent failure rate when Homeland Security agents tried to sneak weapons and fake explosives through TSA checkpoints at airports around the country,” wrote the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

And some activists and analysts also criticized the sheer cost of compliance. “There is no need for California to spend a dime on Real ID compliance, but the most recent analysis of AB1465 says the California DMV would incur costs of approximately $5.56 million in 2016-17 and $5.4 million each year after that,” argued Cato Institute senior fellow Jim Harper.

But, in California, the changes have impacted a different constituency as well: advocates for mainstreaming unlawful immigrants into civic life. Liberals statewide — and around the country — largely cheered when the Golden State succeeded in its negotiations last year with federal authorities around granting special drivers licenses to the otherwise undocumented. Although officials have said “the new rules are not related to California’s decision to provide drivers’ licenses to immigrants,” according to KCRA, because “[t]hose licenses were never intended to be used for air travel and are marked accordingly,” Washington’s aggressive negotiating stance — it rejected initial California designs for the special license — implied a federal interest in minimizing differences between licenses in different states.

Time running out

Adding to the atmosphere of concern, some states have already had their requests for compliance extensions rejected. “At least 19 other states recently received an extension of their exemptions, but the federal agency rejected requests for extensions from Missouri and Illinois,” KCRA reported separately. “States initially were supposed to comply with the Real ID requirements by the end of 2009. Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation to provide time for states to change their driver’s license procedures and make the necessary technological improvements.” But patience has begun to run out.

Emerging statistics have revealed that California’s extension of drivers licenses to unlawful immigrants aroused unexpected demand — with no end in sight.

“While state officials expected 1.4 million undocumented immigrants to apply for licenses in the first three years, in the first six months since the law has been enacted more than 1.1 million undocumented immigrants have so far taken the written test, and another 436,000 have taken the driving test,” reported Fox News Latino.

“During the first six months that the Safe Driver and Responsibility Act — or AB 60 — went into effect, the Department of Motor Vehicles saw more than 600,000 applications from undocumented immigrants,” the Los Angeles Daily News observed. DMV officials announced that, in the first half of the year, some 397,000 licenses have been issued to unlawfully present immigrants — half the total of roughly 759,000 licenses issued, according to the Associated Press.

And according to officials, the robust numbers were only the beginning. “An estimated 1.5 million applications from undocumented immigrants are expected to be processed over the next three years,” the Daily News confirmed.

Partial identification

The rules for the special licenses were crafted to strike what seemed to be an inviting compromise. “The new license is marked differently than those issued to other drivers in the state and is not considered a valid form of federal identification, for example, to board an airplane,” AP added. “Applicants must pass driving tests and show proof of residency and identity” — the same documents as lawful immigrants and citizens, as KCRA noted.

But the license’s limited use as a form of identification underscored how California’s effort to bring unlawful immigrants out of the shadows plunged them into a different kind of gray area. In addition to what has often proven to be a steep learning curve, with many struggling to pass the written exam, applicants have had to take “a leap of faith that government officials won’t use immigration status against an applicant,” KCRA pointed out.

That teed up the kind of potential conflict playing out now between California’s so-called “sanctuary cities” and its Congressional delegation. As National Journal reported, Sen. Dianne Feinstein “has pledged to make a legislative push” to rein in Californian leniency. In one sign of the rising stakes, National Journal continued, “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has come out in support of limiting the power of officials in sanctuary cities.”

Looking for evidence

Nevertheless, support for the licenses appeared to be strong enough to sustain the program. As activist organizations that pushed for the changes had noted, until 1994, “immigrants had access to a driver’s license in California, regardless of immigration status,” according to Drive CA, one such group. In that sense, AB 60 marked a return to the old status quo.

On the other hand, California’s population of illegal immigrants rose profoundly over the ensuing decades. Activists have used that fact to advance the argument that too many unlicensed immigrants on the roads present a peril to all drivers. 

“Supporters of the law say giving licenses to people regardless of their immigration status makes the roads safer for everyone,” as AP recalled. Authorized drivers, the logic ran, would be more likely to operate well-maintained cars, and to obey traffic laws without trying to evade detection. But the debate over whether the program made roads safer has had to wait for more data. As Fox News Latino noted, “the California Department of Insurance does not have data available on whether the boom in new license-seekers has led to increased auto insurance sales, but anecdotal evidence does appear to show a slight uptick in people buying car insurance.” Californians will have to await additional information on how many licensed unlawful immigrants have been involved in vehicle collisions.

Drivers who’ve had their licenses suspended could soon get a reprieve.

State Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, has introduced legislation that would reduce outstanding penalties and fines for drivers with a suspended license. In addition to reducing penalties, Senate Bill 405 would provide a method for drivers with a suspended license from a nonviolent offense to regain their driving privileges.

Hertzberg says that legislation is needed to help low-income residents who are caught in a Catch-22: They can’t pay their fines because they are unable to find or keep a job without a driver’s license.

“We are criminalizing the poor and dramatically impacting their lives with punishments that far exceed their crimes by slamming them with excessive fines,” Hertzberg said in a recent press release. “Then we take away their ability to get to work.”

Exponential growth of traffic fines

In recent years, state and local governments have added supplemental charges and raised fines for traffic offenses.

“What used to be a $100 violation now costs nearly $500, and jumps to over $800 if a person misses the initial deadline to pay,” the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, which is co-sponsoring Hertzberg’s legislation, noted in a recent report. “As the fees have gone up, and with the economic crisis, fewer people can afford to pay their tickets.”

Those higher fees have corresponded with an increase in the number of drivers with suspended licenses due to non-payment of penalties. The civil rights group estimates that 4.2 million Californians have had their licenses revoked because of non-payment of fines since 2006.

Even responsible drivers, who coordinate a payment plan with the court, are unable to regain their license “until every cent of a fee is paid,” according to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights.

Hertzberg’s office argues that some fines are compounded by simple mistakes, such as address changes. In one case, “a $25 ticket for failing to notify the DMV of an address change ended up owning $2,900 to the state,” according to CBS Los Angeles.

Governor’s Traffic Amnesty program

Hertzberg’s proposal would work in conjunction with Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan for a Traffic Amnesty program in the 2015-16 state budget. Currently, the state has $10 billion in uncollected court-ordered debts.

Advocates for poor and working class Californians say that an amnesty program is helpful, but only part of the solution. After all, it’s usually necessary to have a license in order to hold a job. One study in New Jersey found that 42 percent of drivers lost their jobs once their license was suspended.

“Suspended licenses can trap working poor in an impossible situation: unable to reinstate their licenses without gainful employment and unable to access employment without a license, keeping people in cycles of poverty that are difficult to overcome,” a State Senate committee analysis explains of the bill. “Employers are affected by having to internalize the cost to replace workers and face the challenge of finding qualified workers with valid driver licenses.”

Under SB 405, drivers with licenses suspended before January 1, 2013, would be allowed to participate in the governor’s amnesty program. Drivers would also see their fines lowered based on a sliding scale based on income levels. The new fees would be based as follows:

• 20 percent of fine or bail for people with an income that is less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level
• 50 percent of fine or bail for people with an income that is between 150 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level
• 80 percent of fine or bail for people with an income that is greater than 200 percent of the federal poverty level

Broad base of support

The measure has a broad base of support, including the the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, Drug Policy Alliance, Personal Insurance Federation of California and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.

“The state needs to tread cautiously in this field lest it remove any incentive for offenders to pay their fine, or, even worse, follow traffic laws in the first place,  the Sacramento Bee wrote in its editorial supporting the bill. “But the kind of measured response Hertzberg is proposing in Senate Bill 405 seems to strike the right balance between expecting personal responsibility while still exercising some compassion and common sense. If this results in more drivers having a license and more fines being paid to local governments, the law would be a victory for motorists and taxpayers alike.”

Last week, the Senate Public Safety Committee agreed, passing SB 405 on to the Committee on Appropriations.

“This is a limited amnesty,” State Senator Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, said in support of the bill during the hearing. “Why do we have to be such money-grubbing legislators?”

Anderson urged Hertzberg to further and focus on more people because “many of these folks are just one step out of poverty.”

Graphic: A Journey through Traffic Court

Similar programs have been introduced in nine other states and the District of Columbia.

Originally introduced by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, the bill to issue driver’s licenses regardless of legal immigration status was passed into law in 2013. Assembly Bill 60, the Safe and Responsible Driver Act, permitted the expansion to take effect on the first day of 2015.

As the law specified, recipients did not get licenses identical to those possessed by U.S. citizens. Thanks to the requirements of federal law, the special licenses differed in their visual appearance by being marked, “FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY.” They cannot be used for specified purposes like entering restricted federal areas.

Now, with the process established by the law well under way, Alejo began urging Californians to help eligible recipients take advantage of the program. There, he said, the key is ensuring interested participants actually pass the driving exam.

“It took us 20 years to pass this law in Sacramento, and now that it is a reality, it is up to all our community, not just the legislators, not just the DMV but also organizations in our communities, to take it seriously and put aside the time to study the books, and be able to pass those tests,” he said.

As the Californian reported, in January, “The statewide written knowledge exam passage rate for all applicants for a new driver’s license was 48 percent, including AB60 applicants” — an increase of 1 percentage point over the Jan. 2014 results.

Outsized demand

But other requirements and hurdles kept licenses out of the hands of many undocumented immigrants who wanted them. “Altogether, about 387,000 undocumented immigrants applied for licenses during the first two months of the program, the state said, but only 131,000 were granted them,” according to Reuters. “Immigrants applying for the licenses must still prove their identities with birth certificates or other means,” in addition to passing the driver’s test.

The flood of demand has reflected a growing sense statewide that beneficiaries simply won’t be subject to increased scrutiny at the federal level. Activists in the legal field have adopted a wait-and-see approach.

“The DMV has said they will not refer these cases to law enforcement as long as the person used the license for driving purposes only and did not commit any other criminal activity,” said one San Francisco attorney at the Asian Law Caucus. “We have not yet seen how this policy is playing out, so we are advising people to use caution.”

More organs

Although the licensing program has divided voters in California, where the issue of undocumented immigrants remains sharply unpopular among many residents, beneficiaries of AB60 have scored a public relations coup of sorts thanks to an unanticipated development: increased rates of organ donation.

As the Fresno Bee reported, the California Transplant Donor Network reasoned the law spurred an increase of some 30 percent:

“From Jan. 2 to March 3, 56,000 people signed up as organ donors, according to the donor network, the only federally designated organ recovery organization in Northern and Central California and Northern Nevada.

“‘It’s got to be more than a coincidence that in the past three months — since AB60 took effect — so many people were added to the donor registry, said spokesman Anthony Borders. ‘It’s the only spike that’s happened in the last few years.'”

Although analysts have not yet connected all the dots, some accounts suggested Latinos who immigrated illegally have benefited from clear religious support in opting to donate.

“Recent popes have spoken in favor of organ donations,” the Orange County Register reported. “Pope Benedict XVI was a card-holding organ donor until he became pope, according to the Catholic News Agency. More recently, Pope Francis described organ donations as ‘a testimony of love for our neighbor.'”

Francis is the first pope from Latin America.

However, in California, where millions of illegal immigrants live, a semi-formal version of state-level amnesty has been gathering steam for years. Despite dogged opposition by Republican and Tea Party activists, Sacramento’s slow-motion legalization of the undocumented has paved the way for the White House’s planned moves to receive a much smoother reception than in other state capitols.

Still, the exact details of Obama’s intended actions remain murky, and even among libertarian-leaning immigration doves, his assertion of sweeping executive powers has hit against fierce criticism. Indeed, as the Washington Post noted, the president himself previously disavowed the constitutionality of what he may now have resolved to do — insisting he was “not a king” and could not “just suspend deportations through executive order.” Californians have not been immune to the sense of ambiguity surrounding Obama’s shifting immigration policy.

Apprehension and expectations

In an interview with the San Jose Mercury News, one illegal immigrant described his discomfort in emblematic terms. Ernesto Perez — a 44-year-old father of four who has spent 19 years residing illegally in the United States — told the paper, “Obama is the only hope we have right now. Because three of my kids live with me, I’m always afraid that I will be separated from them. They need me. We need each other.”

Perez’ long undocumented stay underscored just how lax California has been in prosecuting illegal immigration, and for how long. His personal uncertainty, however, confirmed what millions of legal and illegal residents have known about president Obama for years: his willingness to deport. Critics from the left, such as Bill Moyers, have slammed Obama for breaking records with over 2 million deportations during his time in office.

That’s why illegal immigrants in California have depended so much on the Golden State’s incremental approach to legalization. Through a battery of state laws and regulations, Sacramento has given undocumented residents several protective paths toward the kind of status that makes it harder to deport.

With taxpayer money, access has been opened to educational loans for college, legal representation in juvenile court proceedings, driver’s licenses and the practice of law without a Social Security number. The California Supreme Court ruled in January that Sergio Garcia, an illegal immigrant who duly passed the California Bar Examination, could not be prohibited by the state from practicing law; Gov. Jerry Brown authorized Garcia’s license soon thereafter.

A push from activists

California activists dedicated to full legalization have used the state’s legal landscape as a justification for pressing president Obama for sweeping changes. In a typical statement making the rounds, California Immigrant Policy Center director Reshma Shamasunder urged Obama “to move on executive action and end unjust deportations that have caused the separation of families, as quickly as possible. Given the stalling we’ve seen in Congress for so many years, we hope he is bold in his action and covers as many people as possible.”

As KQED reported, California’s rules 麻将牌 helped swell the immigrant population to its current level, with about half of the children in state claiming an immigrant parent and one in four residents claiming foreign birth. Although legal immigrants have not pushed in a collective way for swift and full amnesty, Latino voters have consistently shown support for some kind of expanded “path toward citizenship,” as policymakers in both major political parties often put it.

For their part, Republicans have warned of consequences if Obama opts against enforcing the immigration laws on the books. Michael Steel, the spokesman for Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-OH, adopted the colorful language characteristic of today’s media relations officials, “If ‘Emperor Obama’ ignores the American people and announces an amnesty plan that he himself has said over and over again exceeds his Constitutional authority, he will cement his legacy of lawlessness and ruin the chances for congressional action on this issue — and many others.”

Rhetoric or reality? With the president’s announcement on amnesty coming tomorrow, the fireworks will begin in earnest. The new, Republican-dominated Senate is seated in January, added to continued GOP control of the House.

Obama is leaving office in two years due to term limits. So in the new year, jockeying to be his replacement will intensify in both the Republican and Democratic parties, with his amnesty possibly the top issue out of the starting gate.

A bill signed into law last year, Assembly Bill 60, was subject to additional requirements by the Department of Homeland Security. DHS officials were concerned the licenses failed to distinguish adequately between those who were present legally and those who were not.

California officials have adopted some of the changes demanded by DHS, but not others. Now, California’s old legislative framework, which permitted unlawful immigrants to apply for licenses had they immigrated as children, will be replaced by a broader, open regime that has the state Department of Motor Vehicles scrambling to meet the anticipated demand.

Years of preparation

Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB60 into law in October 2013. But it had been the focus of legislative attention in California for years.

The previous governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, vetoed a similar law. Since that time, a political movement spanning many states pursued driver’s licenses for unlawful immigrants. Washington, Oregon and New Mexico have adopted similar programs, with a total of 10 states embracing the legal gray area that results.

The political push at the state level developed out of the failure of Democrats to deliver a comprehensive federal immigration reform bill that would liberalize laws and give unlawful immigrants a more protected and official status. Brown, riding the wave, said he hoped AB60 represented just a “first step” for California that other states would be inspired to follow.

An unready bureaucracy

Although the development of the licenses has long been on the horizon, state officials faced with the task of implementing AB60 have not had a long time to prepare. Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times reported, the DMV was considering opening “up to six temporary offices to handle the estimated 1.4 million immigrants who are expected to apply in the next three years.” Southern California Public Radio has now confirmed the DMV “has hired more than 400 people and plans to bring on another 500 by January.”

The “huge undertaking,” as spokeswoman Jessica Gonzalez explained, has focused on four temporary sites, located in Granada Hills, Lompoc, San Jose and Stanton. All four locations have been locked in for a three-year span, with an option for renewal contingent on demand. According to Gonzalez, as many as 1,000 new DMV hires have been budgeted in by Brown.

Adding to the bureaucratic load, “DMV employees are also required to undergo a fresh round of diversity training to prepare for the immigrant applicants.”

Legal wrangling

The implementation of AB60 has been launched without every legal detail being squared away. As the Press-Enterprise reported, federal government requirements added to the process set forth in AB60 aimed to ensure the new licenses were not used — or usable — as identification at the airport and in other security situations.

“The new license includes a statement on the front that ‘Federal Limits Apply’ and on the back that ‘This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes,” according to the Press-Enterprise. “This license is issued only as a license to drive a motor vehicle. It does not establish eligibility for employment, voter registration, or public benefits.'”

Some federal requirements, however, have simply been ignored. The “unique design or color” demanded by regulators has apparently been bypassed by California officials. “DMV spokeswoman Jessica Gonzalez said the agency isn’t worried that Homeland Security will reject the design,” according to the Press-Enterprise.

Meanwhile, groups pushing to smooth the way for unlawful immigrants “believe that a license with a different color or design could lead to discrimination … causing many of them to not apply for the new license. … After DMV issued an initial set of guidelines indicating which forms of identification would be acceptable for obtaining a new license, immigration activists in the Inland area and elsewhere criticized the DMV’s preliminary requirements as too burdensome and, in some cases, costly.”

The requirements have duly been loosened, with as little as one piece of identification being considered to get a license.