Cornelius J. Melver
[My address]

Re: Social Security Number or Application for Driver's License

Dear Mr. MeIver:

Governor Tom Ridge has forwarded your letter of November 7, 1998, to the Department of Transportation for examination and response. In turn, your letter has been forwarded to the Office of Chief Counsel for a legal determination of the issues in question. Accompanying your letter was your letter of November 6, 1998, addressed to Ms. Bickley. I will reply to both letters with this one.

Your letter of November 6, 1998, makes it clear that you understand that federal statutes allow any state, in the administration of a driver licensing program or motor vehicle registrations in its jurisdiction, to utilize social security account numbers and to require any person to furnish to the state social security account number issued by the Commissioner. I believe you must be aware that 42 U.S.C. [section] 405(c)(2)(c)(V) voids any previous provision of federal law which is inconsistent with this priority.

Your letter further indicates that Pennsylvania is not following section 7 of the Privacy Act in that section 7 requires this state to disclose whether disclosure of the social security number is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is being solicited and what uses will be made of it. The Department of Transportation is complying with this provision of federal law. The following language is provided in the application form which was presented to you: "The Department is required to obtain the Licensee's Social Security Number, height, and eye color under the provision of Sections 1510(a) and/or 1609(a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code.

[end of page 1]

Cornelius J. Melver
January 5, 1999
Page 2

This information will be used as identifying information in an attempt to minimize driver license fraud. Federal law permits the use of the Social Security Number by state licensing officials for purposes of identification."

The section of the Privacy Act which you quote does not require that the Department provide citation to federal authority. The Privacy Act allows a state to obtain the Social Security Number if there is state authority. The applicable state authority was provided to you on the application form.

Your letter also quite clearly points out that you are not entitled to a waiver from the Social Security requirement from the federal government. Therefore, if you want to have a Pennsylvania driver's license authorizing you to drive on the highways of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, you will obtain a Social Security number. This is a mandatory requirement of Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Hershey, 669 A2d. 517 (Pa Cmwlth Ct 1996).

Sincerely

[signed]

Andrew S. Gordon
Chief Counsel

220/ASG/HHC/dmb

My thoughts: This is a heavy punch. Very heavy handed. First, he mispelled my name. No problem, really.

2nd Paragraph: I have no idea what the point is of the last sentence. 42 USC 405 (c)(2)(C)(v) says:

If and to the extent that any provision of Federal law heretofore enacted is inconsistent with the policy set forth in clause (i), such provision shall, on and after October 4, 1976, be null, void, and of no effect. If and to the extent that any such provision is inconsistent with the requirement set forth in clause () If and to the extent that any provision of Federal law void, and of no effect.
[NOTE: My source on this citation is Cornell, and their web page (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/405.html) has a formating problem in this citation as I write this. The latter parens are suppossed to contain a clause number. I kicked them an email so maybe they'll fix it.]

This section basically says that states are allowed to ask for numbers for driver licenses, and that any prior law that says otherwise is nullified, but the Privacy Act does not conflict with the above section, so it's not nullified. And if he were suggesting that the Privacy Act is null & void for that reason, then there would be no need for the letter to continue. It reminds me of letter another guy without an SSN here in PA, also driving without a license, received from them. That one said clauses (i) & (iv) of the provision of law superceeded the Privacy Act. Not quite.

3rd-4th Paragraph: He's claiming that citation of state authority is enough to satisfy the requirements of the Privacy Act. It is true that section 7 (b) of the Privacy Act does not actually use the word "federal", but is that really the intent of what's written there, or does the word "statute" in that code section referring to federal only? You decide.

If he's right, then there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that no reading of the law can be too strict, which gives me more cards to play.

5th Paragraph: This is a beauty. He apparently does not yet know that there is no federal waiver. He clearly implies that I am required by federal law to have a social security number, and then takes a firm stand denying me a drivers license unless I get one. If there were a federal law requiring me to have a number, this would be okay, but if there is not, and there is also no law allowing Pennsylvania to discriminate against people without numbers (which, in the strictist reading of PA law does not) then that statement becomes extortion. I've not yet obtained a copy of the court case he cited (PA is pretty bad about posting cases on-line) but will soon.

On top of that, I don't know what in my letter he claimed made clear that I was not entitled to the "waiver". Perhaps it was my statement that I was eligible to apply for an SSN?

Also notice that the date on the second page is 3 days earlier than the date on the first. I'd like to think of that as evidence he may have had to do some homework to come up with this position... maybe...

All information presented here is done so under the protection of the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and article I section 2 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, as established in the famous trial of William Penn in August 1670, and contrary to the unlawful instructions given by most American judges, in addition to judging the facts of a case, juries also have the right and duty to pass judgement on the law (meaning they may acquit a violator of the law if they believe the law in question is unconstitutional, immoral, just plain stupid, or if the penalty is deemed too harsh). Juries are also lawfully free to vote according to their conscience, above all other considerations.