House Bill 4196 amends Michigan’s Enhanced Driver License and Enhanced Official State Personal Identification Card Act. The bill updates section 5 of 2008 PA 23 to revise and clarify the application requirements for an enhanced driver license or enhanced state ID, including the information and documentation an applicant must submit to the Secretary of State, the capture and use of facial images and signatures, and the handling of Social Security numbers and other sensitive records. It also makes technical and cross-reference updates, including changes related to the communication impediment designation process.
The bill preserves the Secretary of State’s authority to verify applications, reject incomplete or questionable submissions, retain copies or digital images of supporting documents, and limit disclosure of those records. It also continues the prohibition on displaying Social Security numbers on the card and restricts the creation of any database that could be shared with countries other than the United States. The bill takes effect 90 days after enactment, but only if the tie-barred legislation, Senate Bill 1814 or House Bill 4194, is also enacted.
Impact
HB 4196 would amend Michigan law governing enhanced driver licenses and enhanced official state personal identification cards by updating statutory language in MCL 28.305. Its practical effect is to refine the Secretary of State’s procedures for collecting, retaining, and disclosing applicant information, while reaffirming privacy protections for facial images, signatures, Social Security numbers, and document images. It also maintains the existing framework for communication impediment designations and related law-enforcement access through the law enforcement information network.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor debate. The bill’s text suggests a largely technical and administrative measure, focused on updating references and clarifying procedures rather than making major policy changes. The tie-bar to related legislation indicates it is part of a coordinated package.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are privacy and data-sharing issues, especially the Secretary of State’s authority to retain facial images and document copies, disclose them for law-enforcement purposes, and manage communication impediment designations. Another possible issue is the bill’s tie-bar requirement, which makes its effectiveness dependent on passage of related legislation, suggesting the provisions are interdependent and may be part of a broader policy or technical cleanup package. No specific opposing or supporting groups are identified in the available record.