Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2007 Senate Bill 962: Mandate proof of citizenship for drivers license (Senate Roll Call 27)
facebook  twitter 

Substitute offered by Sen. John Gleason (D) on February 6, 2008, to adopt a version of the bill that does not include the federal "Real ID" act provisions, including the requirement that the Secretary of State check the citizenship or legal resident status of drivers license and state ID card applicants against a real-time database. Instead, the substitute would just clarify that these documents may be issued to non-citizens who are legally in the state. The substitute failed 16 to 21 in the Senate on February 6, 2008.
View All of Senate Bill 962: History, Amendments & Comments 

The vote was 16 in favor, 21 against, and 1 not voting.
(Senate Roll Call 27 at Senate Journal 11)

Print-friendly version

 Comment on this vote   View others' comments   Add to scorecard 

Line

Vote
In Favor In Favor
Against Against
Not Voting Not Voting
 Undecided
Republican
1000%
100100%
1000%
21 total votes
Democrat
94694%
1000%
5955%
17 total votes
Voters
1000%
100100%
1000%
1 total vote

What do you think? In Favor Against Undecided (log on required)

Line

The substitute

IN FAVOR

SENATE DEMOCRATS

Anderson (D)Barcia (D)Basham (D)Cherry (D)Clark-Coleman (D)
Clarke (D)Gleason (D)Hunter (D)Jacobs (D)Olshove (D)
Prusi (D)Schauer (D)Scott (D)Switalski (D)Thomas (D)
Whitmer (D)    

SENATE REPUBLICANS
none


AGAINST

SENATE DEMOCRATS
none

SENATE REPUBLICANS

Allen (R)Birkholz (R)Bishop (R)Brown (R)Cassis (R)
Cropsey (R)Garcia (R)George (R)Gilbert (R)Hardiman (R)
Jansen (R)Jelinek (R)Kahn (R)Kuipers (R)McManus (R)
Pappageorge (R)Patterson (R)Richardville (R)Sanborn (R)Stamas (R)
Van Woerkom (R)    


SENATE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE

Brater (D)



SENATE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES

  n  Allen (R)Y    Anderson (D)Y    Barcia (D)Y    Basham (D)  n  Birkholz (R)
  n  Bishop (R)  -  Brater (D)  n  Brown (R)  n  Cassis (R)Y    Cherry (D)
Y    Clark-Coleman (D)Y    Clarke (D)  n  Cropsey (R)  n  Garcia (R)  n  George (R)
  n  Gilbert (R)Y    Gleason (D)  n  Hardiman (R)Y    Hunter (D)Y    Jacobs (D)
  n  Jansen (R)  n  Jelinek (R)  n  Kahn (R)  n  Kuipers (R)  n  McManus (R)
Y    Olshove (D)  n  Pappageorge (R)  n  Patterson (R)Y    Prusi (D)  n  Richardville (R)
  n  Sanborn (R)Y    Schauer (D)Y    Scott (D)  n  Stamas (R)Y    Switalski (D)
Y    Thomas (D)  n  Van Woerkom (R)Y    Whitmer (D)  

Senate Roll Call 27 on The substitute

Line

Comments

License ID  by cookiemaker54 on February 9, 2008 
In other words...leave things as they are and to heck with the fact that illegal aliens are eating up tax dollars at a voracious rate while putting little back into the State's economy. Hey! It might garner a few more votes. Typical Democrat thinking.

Sen. Cropsey's "journal statement"  by Admin003 on February 7, 2008 
Senator Cropsey, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the substitute offered by Senator Gleason to Senate Bill No. 962 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the substitute be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows:

As I’ve listened to this debate, it just seems like there’s a total lack of focus by the proponents of this substitute as to what this substitute actually does. We were just told that this substitute is a common-sense solution. Really now? Here are 10 reasons why I think we ought to be opposing this substitute:

Reason No. 10 - It hurts seniors. Your driver’s license will no longer qualify you to fly. Seniors, you’re going to need a passport. If you vote for this substitute, you’re telling every single snowbird in this state that they now need a passport to fly to Florida or Arizona. You might as well declare Michigan to be a foreign country.

Reason No. 9 - It’s very hostile to business. If your company has conventions, trainings, or headquarters outside of Michigan, and you live and work in Michigan, you’ll need a passport to fly to your annual company convention. What a great sales pitch. And here we are talking about encouraging the film industry to come to Michigan, but the only way the Film Office or the MEDC can fly to California is if they have a passport. We’ll end up having to pay for our state employees to get passports to fly to national meetings or fly to go to other states. And what a great closing line we’ll have: “And if you really like Michigan and end up staying here, you’ll need a passport to leave.” That sounds good doesn’t it?

Reason No. 8 - It’s hostile to our budget. If we do this now, the federal government will give us funding to help implement it. If we adopt this sub, we are shifting all of the costs onto the private citizens who will be required to obtain passports, as well as encumbering the state budget to have to fully fund this issue, as we will eventually have to do to join the 21st century economy.

Reason No. 7 - This is a slap in the face to every citizen in this state. Thirty-five percent of all identity theft in this country is perpetrated with the help of fraudulent driver’s licenses. This substitute will no longer require the Secretary of State to use the most up-to-date practices to verify that you are really who you claim to be. Every single victim of identity theft and every single person concerned with identity theft ought to be highly concerned that this substitute makes Michigan one of the more promising places to steal somebody’s identity.

Reason No. 6 - This substitute is dangerous. The 9/11 hijackers used 30 licenses and state ID cards obtained fraudulently, many of them obtained fraudulently, including Michigan licenses and 364 aliases to set up their terrorist attacks. Under this sub, Michigan will be one of the best places in the nation to continue such fraud. Terrorists will be one step away from getting a hazmat license, allowing them to drive propane trucks and gasoline tankers. This sub basically establishes a new state motto: “We’re the weak link.”

Reason No. 5 - This substitute is negative advertising. Imagine being a national business looking to locate a new headquarters or a plant in Michigan. Other states? Just get a driver’s license. Michigan? You need a passport to fly anywhere else in the country. Why on earth would any company want to locate in Michigan? We’ve already heard the international outcry about needing licenses for noncitizens, and this sub, rather than solving the problem, puts a Band-Aid on it while sacrificing the true needs of rebuilding our economy.

Reason No. 4 - This substitute is harmful to higher education. How on earth do you expect our institutions of higher education to attract national or international talent when their Michigan license will not be good for identification purposes all over the country? I can see the University of Michigan disclaimer now: “Come live and teach in Michigan - some restrictions apply.” Do you really think the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other research university want to have to get passports for its athletic teams so they can play other schools around the country?

Reason No. 3 - This substitute disenfranchises every Michigan adult. If you can go anywhere else in the country, for any reason, business or vacation, and they require ID, your license will not qualify. Go to any federal building? Need a passport. Going to Washington, D.C., to see the sights? Forget the Capitol or the Smithsonian, unless, of course, you have your passport. But maybe they’re trying to discourage out-of-state vacations because that’s what this sub would really do.

Reason No. 2 - It is a huge disfavor to any legal alien who has a Michigan license and who drives outside of Michigan. Heaven forbid if they’re pulled over. Their license may not be good enough to prove that they are who they say they are. Unless they have a passport, they may spend an awful lot of time trying to prove that they are who they really claim to be. The whole point of this legislation was to help legal aliens, but this substitute is doing just the opposite.

And, finally, my last reason is really all of the above. How on earth can anyone stand up here and defend this substitute, knowing that it ties Michigan to the 1900s while the rest of the country moves on?

Folks, this is 2008. No matter how much we may want to think otherwise, times have changed. This substitute is dangerous and it’s deadly to the 21st century economy. The bill in front of us is the result of 2,973 people who died on September 11, 2001, but this substitute attempts to turn back the clock. No amount of wishful thinking can change the fact that Michigan residents need better protection than this substitute can offer. It deserves only to be thrown into the trash heap of history, and the sooner the better.

I urge a “no” vote on this substitute.



Sen. Brown’s "journal statement"  by Admin003 on February 7, 2008 
Senator Brown’s statement is as follows:

The purpose of the legislation before us is to secure the integrity of this most important piece of personal identification, like the birth certificate. It is a gateway document allowing access to services, buildings, and transportation. Our government has done precious little for the people in this regard. The people expect us to address this issue and now. Protecting this document protects our security and even our borders. The 19 hijackers, as it has been noted, had upwards of 17 driver’s licenses including Arizona, California, Florida, and Virginia—could have been Michigan. They also had 14 state ID cards including Florida, Maryland, and again, Virginia—could have been Michigan.

Now I sit here in seat No. 6 and I see the seal of Virginia up there. The good Senator from the 8th District hails from the same state I hail from, Virginia. I am glad Michigan wasn’t in that very bad legacy of driver’s licenses that these 19 hijackers had. They also had 364 aliases, so they may have had more than driver’s licenses.

This legislation is reasonable and responsible. We must act now. I urge members to support Senate Bill No. 962.


View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.