Maryland subcommittee delays bill on ID cards for minors after MVA raises federal limits
February 13, 2026 | Environment and Transportation Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Delegate Robin Lewis, chair of the Motor Vehicle and Transportation Subcommittee, opened discussion of House Bill 23 on Feb. 12 as a measure to remove barriers for minors seeking state identification cards.
Patrick Tracy, the subcommittee’s policy analyst, reviewed last year’s version, saying the prior bill prohibited requiring a parent or guardian cosign and enumerated alternative documents the MVA could accept for 15‑ to 18‑year‑olds, including school records, shelter or social‑service documentation and child‑welfare records. The current draft would also permit issuance of non‑Real ID‑compliant cards for minors.
MVA official Lisa Nisley told the committee the agency has in many cases been able to resolve individual situations without law changes and has sent a written commitment to remove the signature requirement by policy. “We can change our policy and no longer require that signature to be a part of the process,” Nisley said, adding that MVA will provide the committee with a list of documents it now accepts for students and other young people.
Nisley also warned of limits driven by federal Real ID requirements. She said the bill’s noncompliant‑card pathway could still be impractical because federal rules may require documents such as two years of tax returns that many teenagers do not have. “They would still need to show two years of tax returns, which most minors … don’t have,” Nisley said.
Members shared examples and concerns about young people who cannot obtain parental signatures — including children of deployed military parents — and asked for data on how often the problem occurs. Delegate Odom urged the committee to consider scenarios in which a minor lacks an available parent or guardian to sign documentation.
After discussion, Chair Lewis said the subcommittee would not vote on HB23 at this meeting and directed staff to obtain MVA’s document list and further clarification on which parts of the proposal can be implemented by policy versus statutory change. The bill was set aside for follow‑up rather than advanced.
The subcommittee will reconvene the discussion once MVA and staff provide the requested details and drafting options.
Patrick Tracy, the subcommittee’s policy analyst, reviewed last year’s version, saying the prior bill prohibited requiring a parent or guardian cosign and enumerated alternative documents the MVA could accept for 15‑ to 18‑year‑olds, including school records, shelter or social‑service documentation and child‑welfare records. The current draft would also permit issuance of non‑Real ID‑compliant cards for minors.
MVA official Lisa Nisley told the committee the agency has in many cases been able to resolve individual situations without law changes and has sent a written commitment to remove the signature requirement by policy. “We can change our policy and no longer require that signature to be a part of the process,” Nisley said, adding that MVA will provide the committee with a list of documents it now accepts for students and other young people.
Nisley also warned of limits driven by federal Real ID requirements. She said the bill’s noncompliant‑card pathway could still be impractical because federal rules may require documents such as two years of tax returns that many teenagers do not have. “They would still need to show two years of tax returns, which most minors … don’t have,” Nisley said.
Members shared examples and concerns about young people who cannot obtain parental signatures — including children of deployed military parents — and asked for data on how often the problem occurs. Delegate Odom urged the committee to consider scenarios in which a minor lacks an available parent or guardian to sign documentation.
After discussion, Chair Lewis said the subcommittee would not vote on HB23 at this meeting and directed staff to obtain MVA’s document list and further clarification on which parts of the proposal can be implemented by policy versus statutory change. The bill was set aside for follow‑up rather than advanced.
The subcommittee will reconvene the discussion once MVA and staff provide the requested details and drafting options.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
