LOS ANGELES - Newly obtained documents reveal that California state officials are concerned that federal legislation called the Real ID Act will require extensive changes to existing practices at the California Department of Motor Vehicles, and will carry heavy expenses that will have to be absorbed by California taxpayers and license applicants.

The Act, passed by Congress last spring, imposes federal regulations on the design, issuance and management of state driver's licenses - turning them, for all practical purposes, into federal identity papers.

"Civil liberties groups, conservative groups, anti-immigration groups - we've all been saying that Real ID will be a real disaster and needs to be revisited by Congress," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "As the survey of people actually charged with carrying out REAL ID indicates, this ill-conceived legislation is totally impractical and not realistic."

The documents are part of a national survey of state motor vehicle officials' views and preparation for complying with Real ID that was conducted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). The documents were first reported by the Associated Press. A copy of California's response to the survey was obtained by the ACLU.

"California officials are right to be concerned," said Valerie Small-Navarro, legislative advocate for the ACLU of Southern California. "Real ID not only means a national ID, but it will mean higher taxes and fees, longer lines, repeat visits to the California DMV, bureaucratic snafus, and, for a lot of people, the inability to obtain a license. But most important, the security it promises is illusory.

"Fortunately, the opposition to this bill is growing more broad as people figure out what it would do and what it would cost and that it will not make us safer. There is a very good chance that we can force Congress to take it up again," Small-Navarro said.

In the survey, California officials wrote that they saw major impacts to the state and its people for each of the following requirements of the Real ID Act:

' Verify and authenticate birth certificates and other required documents including proof of principal place of residence with the issuing entity. California's officials asked "How will we verify all identity/source documents when no national system currently exists to support this type of effort?"

' Capture and digitally store in a transferable format the images of birth certificates and other identity and source documents. The DMV states that this requirement, among other things, necessitates new equipment, major programming, and database development for at least 25 million records.

' Limit the period of validity of driver's licenses and ID cards that are not temporary to a maximum of eight years. The DMV notes that Senior ID cards are currently issued for 10 years, and this change requires that these applicants appear more often at the DMV.

In addition, there were many areas where the DMV thought the Real ID requirement would have an unknown impact because the federal regulations have not been issued. For example, the DMV asks whether the Real ID Act requirements are "day forward," meaning, must all California drivers have a new Real ID-compliant driver's license by May 2008?

The DMV also asks, "Will existing cardholders be required to provide an identity/source document to re-verify their identity at the time of every renewal?" and "What will be the requirements to allow for a renewal by mail or renewal by Internet program? Finally, the DMV states that the impact is unknown for the requirement that provides electronic access to all other states to information contained in the motor vehicle database.

"Congress needs to do this right and actually hold hearings, listen to all the different interests and real-world practical difficulties, and give it an up-or-down vote, none of which happened when it was rammed through last spring," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the national ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project. "Californians need to join with others around the country and help block this disastrous law before it's too late."

California's response to the AAMVA survey along with other documents is online at www.realnightmare.org.

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it will oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.

"At a time when our president has claimed unprecedented authority to spy on Americans and jail terrorism suspects indefinitely, America needs a Supreme Court justice who will uphold our precious civil liberties," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Unfortunately, Judge Alito's record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms."

Throughout his career, Judge Alito has promoted an expansive view of executive authority and a limited view of the judicial role in curbing abuses of that authority. Two years ago, Justice O'Connor eloquently expressed what is at stake in these critical times when she wrote: "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Romero also noted that Judge Alito has written a series of troubling decisions on race, religion, and reproductive rights while sitting on the federal appeals court. These are precisely the issues in which Justice O'Connor often cast a critical swing vote on a closely divided Supreme Court.

"Issues like affirmative action, immigrants rights, gun violence and reproductive freedom are of vital importance to Californians and may very well wind up before the Supreme Court in the near future" said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Samuel Alito does not have a good record on these and other important issues. If appointed to the Court he could seriously damage the freedoms we have all come to expect."

The ACLU vote came after a special meeting of its 83-member national board this weekend, which has voted to oppose only two nominees in its 86-year history: Justice William Rehnquist (in his initial nomination to the Court) and former Solicitor General and law professor Robert Bork.

In December, the ACLU issued a 68-page report summarizing Judge Alito's record on civil liberties and civil rights. The ACLU sent the report along with a letter expressing "deep concern" to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking member Patrick Leahy, urging the committee to conduct a thorough review of Judge Alito's record.

The ACLU, founded in 1920, participates in more cases before the Supreme Court than anyone besides the U.S. government itself.

LOS ANGELES - Only one day after widespread reports that the FBI is monitoring and infiltrating political organizations, the three California affiliates of the ACLU are seeking information about the intelligence gathering efforts of law enforcement agencies in this state.

The Public Records Act request is being sent to Attorney General Bill Lockyer and focuses on the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) and information that it may have received from the FBI.

"The government should not be wasting resources spying on peaceful critics exercising their First Amendment rights,' said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Reports of the FBI illegally monitoring California organizations concern us greatly and are unacceptable.'

Tuesday, the national ACLU released FBI documents that were obtained after the organization filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to find out whether the FBI's partnerships with local law enforcement in Joint Terrorism Task Forces has resulted in increased surveillance of political and religious activity. The documents released on Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee showed the FBI expanding the definition of "domestic terrorism" to include citizens and groups that participate in lawful protests or civil disobedience.

In the Public Records Act request, the ACLU thanked Attorney General Lockyer for issuing guidelines two years ago protecting privacy rights under the California constitution but cautioned: "with the growing use of state and local law enforcement officials on Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) run by the FBI there still exists the possibility of entanglement of local law enforcement in federal activities that exceed the scope of their authority under California law."

The ACLU is seeking records on the ACLU California affiliates and chapters, Greenpeace, PETA, United for Peace and Justice, Food not Bombs, Code Pink, Peace Fresno, War Resisters League West, College Not Combat, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee among others.

Under the California Public Records Act, the agencies have 10 days to respond.