This is a follow up to my blog entry Face veils and the law. It's the results of my preliminary research into what the courts have said about non-photo driver's licenses and about whether people can be required to present ID. If you're not interested in law, you can skip this entry.
In 1984, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Quaring v. Peterson, 728 F.2d 1121 (1984), heard a case in which a Christian woman requested a non-photo driver's license because she considered the photograph to be a "graven image" forbidden by her religious beliefs1. The court held:
(1) Nebraska driver's licensing requirement that applicants submit to having color photograph taken for affixing on the license unconstitutionally burdened subject applicant's free exercise of her sincerely held religious beliefs, supported by historical and biblical tradition and implemented in her daily life, that the taking of her photograph would violate the Second Commandment's express forbidding of the making of any graven image or likeness of anything in creation, and (2) requiring that applicant receive her license without complying with photograph requirement was reasonable accommodation of her religion and did not violate establishment clause.The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this ruling in Jensen v. Quaring, 472 U.S. 478 (1985). Thus, the objections to photo driver's licenses are neither limited to face-veiling Muslims (or to Muslims in general) nor are they specious: the right to take a religious exemption from having a photo driver's license has been recognized by the Supreme Court. As an aside, while I was looking for information about this case, I came across a lawsuit filed in Alabama alleging that a law requiring people to present a social security number to obtain a driver's license violates their freedom of religion because:
...they have a sincerely held religious belief that the federal social security number is the "Mark of the Beast" described in the Bible's Book of Revelation...It seems that Sultana Freeman is not the only person in this country who holds some rather interesting religious beliefs. So that's the photo driver's license question. A lot of people, in objecting to the idea of non-photo driver's licenses, argued that having a photo driver's license is required for identifying oneself to the police upon request. While looking for further information, I discovered to my own surprise that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held only a year ago that people are not required to identify themselves to police officers, and that Nevada laws that made failure to provide identification a criminal offense were unconstitutional. Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, 279 F.2d. 873 (2002) (PDF file). As law professor Eugene Volokh reported last December, the Nevada Supreme Court has since upheld those same laws, creating a conflict in the law. Professor Volokh thinks that this issue is headed for the Supreme Court. Local coverage of the Carey decision was provided by the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review-Journal 1Some Muslims might attempt to make this same argument against the use of images. However, even conservative Saudi scholars have held that Photographs which are essential are permitted - such as those required for identity documents... And in any case, a partial image, such as a head and shoulders shot, is generally OK. More about the Islamic rules of picture-making is available here. Added in comments: 1) It doesn't matter if Sultana Freeman's religious views do not represent those of most Muslims 2) Summary of the current state of the law 3) Supreme Court says it doesn't matter if driving is a privilege rather than a right