State: identification cards; cross-reference to 1972 PA 222; update. Amends sec. 5 of 2008 PA 23 (MCL 28.305). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5475'26
House Bill 5476 amends the Enhanced Driver License and Enhanced Official State Personal Identification Card Act to update and clarify the application, retention, disclosure, and security rules for enhanced driver licenses and enhanced state ID cards. The bill requires applicants to provide standard identifying information, proof of U.S. citizenship, and supporting documentation, and it continues to require the Secretary of State to capture the applicant’s facial image and signature at the time of application.
The bill also reinforces limits on disclosure of sensitive records. It prohibits disclosure of an applicant’s facial image, signature, Social Security number, and retained document images except in specified circumstances, including law enforcement use, other legal requirements, or written authorization from the individual. It further bars the state from maintaining a database under the act that could be shared with a country other than the United States, and it preserves the ability to appeal a rejected application.
A notable substantive change is the addition of a process for a voluntary communication impediment designation on enhanced driver licenses and enhanced state ID cards. The Secretary of State must allow applicants to elect that designation and must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before canceling or revoking it. The bill also updates cross-references to related Michigan vehicle and identification card statutes and maintains rules on retention of facial images for unsuccessful applicants, including longer retention where fraud is suspected.
The bill’s impact on state law is primarily technical and administrative, but it affects how the Secretary of State handles personal data, identity verification, and law-enforcement access to records tied to enhanced identification documents. It also interacts with the Michigan Vehicle Code, the state personal identification card law, the CJIS policy framework, and the Freedom of Information Act by preserving confidentiality for most retained records while allowing limited authorized disclosure.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and context is neutral and procedural, with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The bill appears to be part of a paired or tied package with HB 5475, suggesting it is intended to work in conjunction with related legislation rather than as a standalone policy change. The main points of potential contention are privacy and data-sharing limits, law-enforcement access to facial images and signatures, and the new communication impediment designation process, though no explicit opposition is shown in the available record.
HB 5476 amends section 5 of the Enhanced Driver License and Enhanced Official State Personal Identification Card Act, affecting the Secretary of State’s procedures for issuing enhanced licenses and state ID cards. It preserves and clarifies requirements for citizenship proof, identity documentation, image capture, record retention, and confidentiality, while adding a voluntary communication impediment designation process and related notice-and-hearing protections. The bill also reinforces restrictions on disclosure of sensitive personal data and prohibits maintenance of a database that could be shared with foreign countries.
The available record suggests a largely technical, administrative, and noncontroversial bill. There are no committee transcripts or votes provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in debate. The tie-bar with HB 5475 indicates the bill is part of a coordinated legislative package, which usually signals a narrow statutory update rather than a broad policy dispute.
The most likely areas of contention are privacy and security issues: how much personal information the Secretary of State may retain or disclose, the extent of law-enforcement access to facial images and signatures, and the prohibition on sharing databases with countries other than the United States. Another possible point of discussion is the new communication impediment designation, including when it may be revoked and what due process is required. No explicit opposing viewpoints are included in the provided materials, however.