AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 63-1-35, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO SPECIFY THE REQUIRED AND OPTIONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED ON DRIVER'S LICENSES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING THE OPTION TO INDICATE THE LICENSEE'S BLOOD TYPE IF MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION VERIFYING SUCH IS PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF LICENSE'S ISSUANCE; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
HB539 amends Mississippi’s driver’s license statute to specify what information must appear on a license and what information may be added at the licensee’s option. The bill keeps the existing required identifying information on the front of the license, including date of birth, sex, race, eye color, hair color, weight, height, and residence address. It also preserves existing optional designations on the back of the license for organ donor preference and adds a new optional designation for the licensee’s blood type.
To use the blood-type option, the applicant must present medical documentation verifying the blood type at the time of issuance or renewal. The bill does not remove any existing license markings for noncitizens, registered sex offenders, or veterans, and it leaves in place the department’s authority to issue electronic licenses. The act would take effect July 1, 2026.
The bill would amend Section 63-1-35 of the Mississippi Code governing the form and content of driver’s licenses issued by the Department of Public Safety. Its main legal effect is to expressly authorize the inclusion of blood type on a license, conditioned on proof from medical documentation, while continuing the department’s existing authority over required identifiers, optional donor designation, veteran markings, sex-offender designation, and electronic-format licenses. It would affect driver’s license applicants and renewals statewide, as well as the Department of Public Safety’s licensing procedures and recordkeeping.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be a straightforward administrative licensing bill with no documented opposition or support in the available record. The caption suggests a practical, service-oriented purpose: allowing drivers to carry blood-type information on their license if they choose. Because there are no transcripts or vote tallies, the overall sentiment cannot be measured directly, but the bill does not show any visible controversy in the supplied context.
The only notable policy issue apparent from the text is the new blood-type designation and the requirement that applicants provide medical documentation to verify it. That condition may raise questions about administrative burden, privacy, and the reliability of documentation, though no specific objections are recorded in the provided materials. The bill also continues existing identifying markers on licenses for sex offenders and veterans, but those provisions are not newly created here and no dispute is documented around them in the available context.