It just means that because this is a federal requirement that needs to be implemented by the states, we're going to see 50 different implementations. Some will work better than others.
My state doesn't require real id and I see no reason the get the realid compliant id my state offers. I have a passport, passport card, and global entry which are all federaly issued and "real" ids.
Why is it so hard to just travel with a passport or passport card?
Yeah not really a surprise. Most of the surveys I've read show something like 10-12% of people have never left their state, and 40% or more of Americans have never left the US.
HN is overwhelmingly technical, educated, well-off, and travels a lot -- most of the US (and other places, for that matter) aren't.
> there was no constitutional violation because air passengers could still travel without identification if they instead underwent the more stringent "secondary screening" search
I wasn't aware that I could decline to show ID at an airport security checkpoint in favor of undergoing a secondary screening. Does this actually work in practice?
(Also, I wonder how it squares with automated facial recognition and similar biometric technology?)
So theoretically if I show up at the airport and claim that I lost my license but had proof that I purchased the tickets, what would happen? Would they just search me in more detail than they already do?
Why is it not considered a privilege to occupy space in a flight in state-controlled airspace? At what point does it become a de facto travel ban, e.g. one can of course travel, so long as they are walking, and of course not on private or government-owned land.
Which is odd to say the least, because the documentation for a US passport (as of a couple years ago) was less stringent than that required by the REAL ID act.