In 2008, Alaska refused to implement REAL-ID with Senate Bill 202. This law states,
“A state agency may not expend funds solely for the purpose of implementing or aiding in the implementation of the requirements of the federal Real ID Act of 2005.”
DHS has been quietly working behind the scenes – trying to get states to implement REAL-ID through back door deals. One such deal has turned out to be a scandal in the state of Missouri. The Department of Revenue (DoR) in Missouri was caught red-handed. It was found that they were implementing sections of the real id act in defiance of a law banning it. They were also using DHS grants to scan biometric data pro, and storing that data to a 3rd party known for it’s workings with DHS, DoD, and the TSA. Click here for the full scandal.
As a result, the director of the DoR has stepped down. That’s not all, Representative Bahr has introduced legislation that would make it possible to fire any department director or deputy director caught “instances of misconduct, perjury before any committee of the general assembly, violation of any state statute, a conviction or plea of guilty for committing any crime, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.”
In Alaska, before things get to such a level, Representative Chenault has introduced legislation to expand on the 2008 law requiring limited noncompliance with the federal act. HB69 has been passed by both state houses and is sitting on the governor’s desk awaiting signature. It’s primarily a bill that protects the right to keep and bear arms, but also includes a clause expanding the state resistance to REAL ID.
The 2008 was quite specific in the limitations, banning the use of spending “solely” for implementation of REAL-ID. That would leave the door open for “creative” politicians and bureaucrats to get sections of the federal act implemented anyway.
HB69, if signed into law, will prevent any direct or indirect spending, use of assets or support in the implementation of the 2005 REAL ID act. In other words – it won’t be happening in Alaska.
“Limitation on use of assets. (a) A state or municipal agency may not use or authorize the use of an asset to implement or aid in the implementation of a requirement of
(2) P.L. 109-13, Division B (REAL ID Act of 2005).
(b) In this section, (1) “asset” means funds, facilities, equipment, services, or other resources of a state or municipal agency; (2) “state or municipal agency” means the University of Alaska, the Industrial Development and Export Authority, the Alaska Energy Authority, the Alaska Railroad Corporation, or a department, institution, board, commission, division, council, committee, authority, public corporation, school district, regional educational attendance area, or other administrative unit of a municipality or of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of state government, and includes employees of those entities.”
Latest posts by Kelli Sladick (see all)
- Colorado Bill Would be the First Step to Stop NDAA Indefinite Detention - January 26, 2015
- Virginia’s New Anti-NDAA Detention Bill Turns the Table on Feds - January 19, 2015
- Asset Forfeiture: Legalized Theft Funding the Police State - October 30, 2014