State Sued Over Immigrant IDs

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund sued the state of California on Thursday, claiming that a controversial measure to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses inadvertently became law last year and needs to be implemented by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The California attorney general’s office, which was asked to weigh in by the DMV, recently wrote the Latino advocacy group to deny the claim and intends to fight the matter.

The measure by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), which would allow immigrants applying for citizenship or permanent residency to obtain a driver’s license, was approved by the Legislature and landed on Gov. Gray Davis’ desk shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks heightened concerns about security.

The Assembly’s chief clerk, E. Dotson Wilson, then pulled the bill back from the governor’s desk--after the Legislature had adjourned for the year and without its formal consent, a move the advocacy group claims was illegal.

Wilson, who said the measure was sent to the governor by mistake, cited a legislative rule that allows him to pull back measures to fix a “clerical error.” But the group contends that Wilson overstepped his bounds and that the bill was never legally removed from Davis’ desk.

Thus, the group says, Assembly Bill 60 became law after 30 days passed without a signature or veto from the governor. An attorney for the state curtly dismissed that argument in a letter to the defense and education fund last week, but did not specify why.

“We respectfully disagree” with the attorney general’s office, fund attorney Hector Villagra said Thursday at a Los Angeles news conference. “Under the Constitution, there’s no question AB 60 is the law.”

A spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer declined to comment Thursday, saying the staff had not yet seen the lawsuit.

For several years, Cedillo has attempted to pass a law in California that would permit immigrants who entered the country illegally but are working to become citizens or permanent legal residents to obtain driver’s licenses. His office estimates that roughly 2 million immigrants are driving in the state without a license or insurance, and argues that that poses a safety concern.

A number of law enforcement leaders agreed with Cedillo’s contention that it would be better to license illegal immigrants than have them drive without government oversight. But when it was revealed that some of the hijackers involved in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center reportedly had fraudulent driver’s licenses, law enforcement leaders expressed new concerns.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund has argued the measure needed to be implemented by the DMV ever since The Times first published a story on the technical blunder last fall. But it waited to take legal action because Cedillo and Davis pledged to work together on a compromise measure that would allow immigrants to legally drive while protecting California from terrorists.

The talks have not resulted in new legislation, however. In fact, they added fuel to the controversy when law enforcement officials proposed that immigrants should have special licenses with an “I” designating their status, an idea that the fund, Cedillo and others charged would make them vulnerable to discrimination.

“The final blow really was this scarlet letter on the driver’s license,” Villagra said in an interview. “That has nothing to do with the security concerns raised in September and undermines the entire purpose of having these licenses.”

Cedillo treaded carefully Thursday after the fund announced it was taking the dispute to court, along with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, on behalf of Yolanda Avila and Mary Grace O. de Asis. The two immigrants attempted to obtain driver’s licenses this year but were told they needed a Social Security Number, something that would not be required if AB 60 had been implemented.

In a statement, Cedillo said he favors legislation over litigation and will continue working with Davis, immigrants’ advocates and law enforcement leaders to fashion a measure all can support.

At the same time, he said in unequivocal terms that he opposed “using any form of physical distinction, such as an ‘I’ or a different color-coded license to distinguish and differentiate driver’s licenses for immigrants. I believe that all licenses should look the same for all drivers.”