To amend section 3501.01 and to enact sections 4507.60, 4507.61, and 4507.62 of the Revised Code to authorize the use of a digital driver's license or state identification card.
HB78 would authorize Ohio residents to use a digital driver’s license or state identification card stored in a mobile application on an electronic wireless communications device. The bill defines key terms such as “digital license or identification,” “selfie,” and “mobile application entity,” and directs the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to create, implement, and administer a program for digital credentials. To participate, a person must already hold a valid physical driver’s license or state ID, and the registrar must adopt rules governing identity verification, data exchange, encryption, security, and procedures for expired, suspended, or revoked credentials.
The bill also amends Ohio’s election-related definition of “photo identification” to expressly include a digital license or identification issued under the new law. It further provides that a person may present proof of identity using the digital credential when requested by a state employee, state official, or peace officer, so long as the credential is valid and the requesting party has the means and authority to accept it. When a device is used to display proof of identity, only the identity information shown on the screen may be viewed, and the bill limits liability for device damage unless the requester acts purposely, knowingly, or recklessly.
HB78 would change Ohio law by creating a new statutory framework in Chapter 4507 for digital driver’s licenses and state identification cards, while also updating election law in section 3501.01 to recognize the digital credential as acceptable photo identification. The bill would give the Registrar of Motor Vehicles broad rulemaking authority to set technical, security, and verification standards, and it would affect the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, mobile application providers, law enforcement, state agencies, and any public or private entity that accepts identity documents. It would not replace physical cards; instead, it would add a digital option for identity verification and proof of age or residence where accepted.
Because the bill was only introduced and no committee testimony or votes are available in the provided record, there is no documented public sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the text, the bill appears to be framed as a modernization and convenience measure, with an emphasis on security, encryption, and controlled access to personal data. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials means the overall sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s apparent policy intent.
The main points of potential contention are privacy, security, and implementation. The bill requires the registrar to collect and transmit data, images, and a selfie for verification, which could raise concerns about data protection and the role of a mobile application entity in managing identity credentials. Another likely issue is acceptance: the bill allows digital IDs to be used only when the requester has the means and authorization to validate them, which may limit practical use and create uneven adoption across agencies and private businesses. There may also be concern about how the system handles expired, suspended, or revoked licenses, and whether digital IDs could be used reliably in elections, law enforcement encounters, and other identity-check settings.