MUST HAVE DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

By Bob Katzen

The Senate 8-31, rejected an amendment that would require the license to have a background color and other features which will distinguish it from all other licenses issued by the RMV.

“[This] would have helped address issues raised by a number of local police chiefs in the district I represent who I consulted with prior to yesterday’s vote,” said Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton). “Based on the input I received, the possible corruption of our state licensing process was flagged as a significant concern.”

Amendment opponents said law enforcement officers do not need a distinctive license to identify a driver. They said the amendment could create be an opportunity for stigma and allow someone to discriminate against its holder.

(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it).

NOT VALID FOR ID (S 2851)
Senate 7-32, rejected an amendment that would require that the license include the words “Not valid for identification” prominently in bold text.”

Amendment supporters said that the license is meant to operate a motor vehicle and it should be made clear that it is not valid for identification purposes.

Amendment opponents said the amendment is unnecessary and will only lead to and open up opportunities to discriminate.

(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it).

Sen. Patricia Jehlen No

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.