By Amanda Mesones

On Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2009, Nevada Governor Gibbons signed emergency driver’s license regulations allowing the DMV to meet the Department of Homeland Security’s Dec. 31 REAL ID Act compliance deadline.

As the Governor requested, specific language prohibiting the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips or other technology used to track individuals was included in the regulations, as well as a definition of how the DMV will store and restrict access to personal identification data. (Read the press release.)

“We included the language recommended by the Governor in the regulations,” DMV Director Edgar J. Roberts said, “to reassure our customers. Rumors on the blogosphere about RFID chips and national databases of driver information have been widely circulated despite being false.”

But despite these transparent efforts on the part of the Nevada DMV, it seems the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is at it again with their campaign of misinformation. The ACLU addressed a Dec. 7 letter to the Governor that was wrought with inaccuracies, misinformation and misunderstanding of Nevada’s current and future DL/ID issuance process.

Roberts responded to the ACLU letter with a letter of his own (on behalf of the Nevada DMV) to the Governor:

“The ACLU is providing a disservice to the citizens of Nevada by repeating misinformation about changes to the Nevada driver’s license and identification (DL/ID) card issuance process both in the cited letter and during the last legislative process,” said Roberts. “The ACLU is promoting fear, rather than facts about the state meeting minimum standards of issuing a DL/ID.”

In his letter, Roberts goes on to include responses to each of the false pieces of information contained in ACLU’s letter.  (Read the letter.)

“…the Department would be doing the citizens of Nevada a disservice by not correcting the misinformation and misunderstandings that are the basis of the ACLU’s opinion on the REAL ID Act.”

Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. But this dog bites. And rather than be defined by the dog’s teeth marks, the Nevada DMV opted to define itself, and its policies, rather than allowing opposition voices to define it. Well said, Roberts! Kudos to you and your Department for the taking the extra step to set the record straight!