Amends existing law to provide for data security compliance training for systems used by the Division of Motor Vehicles.
Summary
House Bill 22 amends Idaho Code section 49-202, which governs the duties of the Department of Motor Vehicles and related record, title, registration, and fee administration. The bill adds a new requirement that all employees, agents, and contractors of the department who have access to the source systems used by the Division of Motor Vehicles must complete data security compliance training and pass an FBI criminal background check. It also directs the department to administer access to those systems and provide the required training.
The bill leaves the broader DMV fee and records framework intact, but it inserts a cybersecurity and personnel-screening requirement into the department’s operational duties. It takes effect July 1, 2025, under an emergency clause, meaning the new training and background-check requirements become effective immediately on that date rather than waiting for a standard delayed effective date.
Impact
The bill amends section 49-202, Idaho Code, by adding subsection (29) to impose mandatory data security compliance training and FBI criminal background checks for DMV personnel, agents, and contractors with access to source systems. This creates a new statutory compliance obligation for the Department of Motor Vehicles and may affect hiring, onboarding, contractor access, and internal security procedures. The measure does not change the underlying fee schedule, title/registration authority, or public-records provisions, but it does require the department to control system access and provide training for covered individuals.
Sentiment
The available voting history indicates strong bipartisan support for the bill. It passed the House 66-0 and the Senate 30-3, suggesting broad agreement that protecting DMV systems and sensitive motor vehicle data is a reasonable administrative safeguard. No committee transcript was provided, and there is no indication of organized opposition in the available materials.
Contention
There is little visible contention in the record provided. The only likely points of discussion would be the scope of the FBI background-check requirement, the administrative burden on the department and its contractors, and the costs or logistics of implementing mandatory training and access controls. Any concerns would most likely come from those affected by the new compliance requirements rather than from disagreement over the general goal of data security.