The ACLU is suing the Bureau of Motor Vehicles seeking to enjoin the Bureau from unilaterally revoking licenses that don’t match information in a database maintained by the federal government’s Social Security Administration. Many of the mismatches occurred because of typographical errors and name-changes following marriage. There are apparently about 206,000 mismatches.
The ACLU’s suit asks that no licenses be suspended without hearings. I haven’t read the suit, but this seems to be a due process question to me. Specifically, how much process is due before the Bureau revokes a license? The BMV probably wants to run a mass computer check, spit out letters whenever the BMV database doesn’t exactly match the SSA database, and revoke the license in a certain number of days if the citizen doesn’t take it upon him or herself to resolve the mismatch between the two government bureaucracies. To me, it seems that if the Bureau wants to take a citizen’s right away, it bears the burden of proving to an impartial third party — presumably a court or at least an Administrative Law Judge — that the discrepancy is more than superficial. That, of course, requires more effort on the part of the BMV. But, the burden exists either way. I don’t think the BMV should be allowed to shift that burden to the citizens just because doing otherwise is a hassle; particularly where, as here, a valid license is a prerequisite to exercising one’s right to vote.
I don’t think there’s really a due process issue here (although there may well be another issue). As a general matter of admin law BMV (or any agency) is not required to provide due process before revoking a license unless a post-revocation remedy would be completely ineffective. With the classic example being the denial of some welfare benefit that would cause you to be unable to eat or pay the rent by the time you can bring a challenge. Plus, in this case it looks like BMV did notify the 200k+ people with mismatched licenses and apparently was able to resolve the issue for everyone except for 56k individuals.
But due process may not be the issue here; the real issue may be that BMV does not have the statutory authority to unilaterally revoke licenses. I.e., just because the general assembly could constitutionally establish a system allowing the BMV to unilaterally revoke unmatched licenses (with an appeal hearing afterwards) doesn’t mean that they have.
And reading between the lines of the C-J article, I kind of think that’s what’s really going on: the ACLU mentions state law (implying the BMV’s actions are contrary to it); the BMV says people are required to have a valid SSN (implying that they can revoke licenses that they later find out don’t seem to have a valid SSN).
Assuming this is a matter not covered by state law, I would think that the ACLU’s position is stronger – I don’t think there is anything in the statutes governing the BMV that implies that the general assembly intended to allow them all powers not constitutionally prohibited.
It looks like there could be 56K imvalidated drivers licenses that can still be used for voting since the local precinct election Clerks have no way of knowing that the card has been “withdrawn” by the BMV. Kinda shoots down the whole sanctity of government-issued PhotoID for election ‘protection’, doesn’t it?
Seeing as driving is not a right, your argument completely falls apart. It seems to me that the BMV can do anything they want.
I pity anyone who has this problem with the BMV. My wife had a similar problem, and it cost us $600 in lawyer and court fees to fix!
And now I read that the BMV doesn’t even know if it was applying the law correctly!
I would submit that driving is indeed a right, regardless of whatever claims the State of Indiana wants to make to the contrary.
What is and is not a right is a question not of legal statute but of objective moral principle.
Why is driving a right?
Voting is a right, and Wilson’s point deserves some consideration.
However, rights don’t require a license than can …be…revoked….crap
Now I’ve just invalidated my support for voter-ID.
*shuffes off with hands in pocket*
It’s self-evident that one has a fundamental natural right to use for its primary intended purpose a road that one is compelled by government thuggery to pay for.
That the State of Indiana requires a license to operate a motor vehicle on a road does not mean that doing so is not a right; rather, because it is in fact a right the State’s requirement of a license is illegitimate.
Wow. I never understood before, but I guess drunk, blind, or stupid drivers have a God-given right to run me over.
And here I throught we were a little too generous on giving out driving licenses.
I’m glad you don’t work for the BMV, Kurt.
Jason,
Eh? I don’t get your reasoning.
A right to bear arms, for example, does not mean a right to murder people with a handgun.