The initial draft of the Minnesota State House's ban on Real ID compliance [0] specifically objected to a few aspects of the law: - "the security and well-bein

The initial draft of the Minnesota State House's ban on Real ID compliance [0] specifically objected to a few aspects of the law: - "the security and well-being of the people of Minnesota," which I believe references long-standing American objections to national identification schemes. Some context in [1]. - "to avoid unneeded expense to the people," referencing the fact that the federal government offered no funding to offset the cost of implementing Real ID. - "to preserve the principles of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," which speaks to concerns that the federal government was usurping rights reserved for the states, and thus challenging the fundamental, federated structure of the nation. The final text of the bill [3] omits those specific complaints, but I found they shed light on the political context around the bill. Ultimately, it was passed 133-0 in the Minnesota House, and 64-1 in the Minnesota Senate. [0]: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF1438&version=0&session=ls85&session_year=2007&session_number=0 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF1438&vers... [1]: https://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/ https://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_... [3]: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2009&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=92 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2009&type=0&doctype=Ch...