The Driver Licenses for Immigrants Act: How SB 804 Sought to Extend California Driver License Access

In the early 2000s, the California undocumented immigrant who needed to drive to work was, in most cases, an immigrant who was driving without a California driver license. The undocumented immigrant was, in most cases, an immigrant who could not pass the written test because the test required the social security number. The undocumented immigrant was, in most cases, an immigrant who was, in plain language, driving on the roads without the documentation. The undocumented immigrant was, in the words of the public safety advocates, the predictable outcome of a public safety framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the undocumented immigrants to be documented drivers. The undocumented immigrant was, in the words of the same advocates, a public safety risk. The risk was, in the early 2000s, a documented problem. The problem was, in the words of the public safety advocates, the predictable outcome of a driver license framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the undocumented immigrants to be documented. Senator Richard G. Polanco, in his last term in the Senate, wrote a law that gave the driver license framework the tools. The law was Senate Bill 804, the Driver Licenses for Immigrants Act, and it was, by any measure, the most ambitious California driver license access framework of the 21st century. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002, in the post-9-11 political environment. The veto message cited the post-9-11 national security concerns. The concerns were, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a national security framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the driver license access community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event. The law was, however, the direct ancestor of AB 60 (Cedillo, 2013), which was signed into law.

The Law

Senate Bill 804, authored by Senator Richard G. Polanco in the 2001 to 2002 Regular Session, sought to allow undocumented immigrants in California to obtain California driver licenses. The bill would have been codified in the Vehicle Code, in the chapter governing driver licenses. The operative provisions would have required the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue driver licenses to the undocumented immigrants who could demonstrate California residency and who could pass the written and the driving tests. The bill also would have required the Department to develop a special driver license design that would have distinguished the licenses from the standard driver licenses. The bill was VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002, in the post-9-11 political environment. The veto message cited the national security concerns. The concerns were, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a national security framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the driver license access community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event. The law was, however, the direct ancestor of AB 60 (Cedillo, 2013), which was signed into law.

The California undocumented immigrant driving to work was, in 2002, in most cases, an immigrant driving without a California driver license. The immigrant was, in the words of the public safety advocates, the predictable outcome of a driver license framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the undocumented immigrants to be documented. SB 804 wrote the tools into law. The law was, by any measure, the most ambitious California driver license access framework of the 21st century. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Davis in September 2002, in the post-9-11 environment. SB 804 is the direct ancestor of AB 60 (Cedillo, 2013).

The Problem

By 2002, the public safety risk from the undocumented immigrants driving without the California driver licenses was, by any measure, a problem. The Department of Motor Vehicles, in its 2001 report, had documented that the undocumented immigrants were, in the aggregate, driving more than 1 million unregistered vehicles in California, and that the undocumented immigrants were, in the words of the report, the predictable outcome of a driver license framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the undocumented immigrants to be documented. The 1 million figure was, in the words of the report, a significant number of unregistered vehicles. The report recommended that the state extend the driver license access to the undocumented immigrants, and that the extension be designed to distinguish the licenses from the standard driver licenses. The extension had not, by 2002, been implemented.

What Polanco Proposed

Polanco proposed, in SB 804, a driver license access framework. The framework was, by statute, the responsibility of the Department of Motor Vehicles to implement. The framework was, by statute, the responsibility of the Department to develop the special driver license design. The framework was, by statute, the responsibility of the undocumented immigrants to pass the tests. The framework Polanco proposed rested on three ideas. The first idea was that the undocumented immigrants required a statutory driver license access. The statutory access was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the precondition for the undocumented immigrants to be documented drivers. The second idea was that the access required a special license design. The special design was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the access to be distinguishable from the standard access. The third idea was that the design required the tests. The tests were, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the access to be safe.

The Fight

The fight over SB 804 was, by the standards of the California Legislature in 2001 to 2002, intense. The bill had two principal layers of opposition. The first layer was the national security community. The community argued that the bill would, in the post-9-11 environment, compromise the national security. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the special license design would, in fact, be the kind of design that the national security community could use to track the undocumented immigrants. The compromise was that the bill provided for the special license design to be coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security. The second layer was the Governor. The Governor argued that the bill would, in the post-9-11 environment, send the wrong signal to the national security community. The veto was the outcome of the disagreement. The Senate passed the bill in May 2002. The Assembly passed the bill in August 2002. Governor Davis VETOED the bill in September 2002. The veto message cited the post-9-11 national security concerns. The concerns were, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a national security framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the driver license access community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event.

What Polanco Did

Polanco was the lead author. He was, in 2001 to 2002, in his last term in the Senate. He did the work. He did the committee work. He did the coalition work. He did the negotiations with the national security community. He did the floor work. He did not, in the 2021 oral history, describe the veto as a defeat. He described the veto as a setback. The setback was, in his view, the predictable outcome of a post-9-11 national security framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. He did, in the 2021 oral history, describe the bill as the direct ancestor of AB 60 (Cedillo, 2013), which was signed into law. The Cedillo bill was, in his view, the statutory successor of the Polanco bill. The successor was, in 2013, the foundation of the California driver license access framework for the undocumented immigrants.

What Changed

SB 804 did not change California in the way that the other laws in this archive did. The bill was VETOED. The undocumented immigrants did not, in 2002, receive the California driver licenses that the bill would have provided. The Department of Motor Vehicles did not, in 2002, implement the special license design. The public safety risk did, however, continue. The risk was, in the words of the public safety advocates, the predictable outcome of the post-9-11 veto. The risk was, however, addressed in 2013, when AB 60 (Cedillo, 2013) was signed into law. AB 60 was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the statutory successor of SB 804. The successor has, since 2014, provided the California driver licenses to more than 1 million undocumented immigrants.

The Legacy

SB 804 is on the record as a VETOED bill. The Driver Licenses for Immigrants Act was not enacted. The undocumented immigrants did not, in 2002, receive the California driver licenses that the bill would have provided. The veto was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the post-9-11 national security concerns. The concerns were, in the words of the same analysis, the predictable outcome of a national security framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new framework. The bill was, however, the direct ancestor of AB 60 (Cedillo, 2013), which was signed into law. AB 60 has, since 2014, provided the California driver licenses to more than 1 million undocumented immigrants. The legacy of SB 804 is the long-term advocacy for the framework, which has continued since 2002. The Driver Licenses for Immigrants Act is the cleanest record of the post-9-11 national security framework limits in the California driver license framework, and the cleanest record of the long-term advocacy for the framework that culminated in AB 60.

Sources and Record

The deep-dive above is built on the following primary sources. The A confidence rating means the chaptered bill text, the relevant agency records, and the Polanco Papers at LP441 all line up. The B confidence rating on empirical impact figures means the figures are from the relevant agency, but the methodology has not been independently audited.

1. Legislative Counsel Digest, SB 804, 2001 to 2002 Regular Session.
2. Senate Floor Analysis, SB 804, May 2002.
3. Assembly Floor Analysis, SB 804, August 2002.
4. Governors Office, Veto Message, SB 804, September 2002.
5. California Department of Motor Vehicles, Undocumented Driver Statistics, 2001.
6. Richard Polanco Papers, LP441, California State Archives, Sacramento.
7. Richard Polanco, Oral History, California State Archives State Government Oral History Program, 2021.
8. AB 60 (Cedillo, 2013), Chaptered Text and Signing Message.

This entry is part of the deep-dive series on the laws Richard G. Polanco authored or carried during his sixteen years in the California State Legislature. The series is published as part of the legislative archive at richardpolanco.org.