Modifies provisions relating to gender designation on driver's licenses, nondriver's licenses, and permits
Summary
HB 135 repeals and reenacts Missouri’s driver’s license statute governing application requirements and adds a new restriction on gender designation. The bill keeps the existing framework for verifying Missouri residency, lawful immigration status, and other eligibility information for driver’s licenses, nondriver’s licenses, and instruction permits. It also preserves existing provisions on voluntary donations for organ donation, blindness education and treatment, and the Missouri Medal of Honor recipients fund, as well as penalties for fraud in the licensing process.
The bill’s most significant new provision is that, to obtain a driver’s license, nondriver’s license, or instruction permit showing a gender other than the applicant’s sex assigned at birth, the applicant must provide medical documentation showing gender reassignment surgery or a court order declaring the applicant’s gender designation. The bill also includes several other licensing-related changes, including an exemption from proof of Missouri residency for certain applicants age 65 and older, acceptance of a U.S. birth certificate plus approved ID as proof of Missouri citizenship for renewals, and a limited one-year renewal option for certain long-term license holders who cannot produce required residency or immigration documents.
Impact
HB 135 would amend section 302.171, RSMo, and directly affect the Department of Revenue’s administration of driver’s licenses, nondriver’s licenses, and instruction permits. It would impose a new legal standard for changing the gender marker on state-issued identification, limiting such changes to applicants who can document gender reassignment surgery or obtain a court order. It would also alter renewal documentation rules for some older residents and long-term license holders, while leaving intact the state’s existing organ donation, blindness program, and Medal of Honor fund donation mechanisms.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a policy change focused on restricting gender-marker changes on state IDs, alongside technical licensing revisions. The absence of voting history or hearing testimony means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the supplied record.
Contention
The main point of contention is the new requirement that applicants seeking a gender designation different from their sex assigned at birth must show proof of gender reassignment surgery or a court order. That provision would likely be opposed by transgender advocates and civil rights groups as burdensome or exclusionary, while supporters would likely frame it as a documentation and identity-verification measure. Secondary issues include the residency-proof exemption for older applicants and the one-year renewal exception for long-term license holders lacking documentation, which may draw less attention but still affect how the Department of Revenue verifies eligibility.