While this Homeland Security map shows California as complying with Real ID, changes may come as a result of a DMV letter sent Tuesday.

Map: DHSFor a short moment Thursday, millions of Californians were in danger of facing pat-downs at the airport and being blocked from federal buildings come May 11.

In a Tuesday letter (.pdf) to Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, the head of California's DMV said that while California had already applied for and gotten an extension on the Real ID deadline, it wasn't actually committing to complying with Real ID rules by 2010. That's when states who ask for extension have to begin issuing driver's licenses and state IDs that comply with the federal rules.

"California's request for an extension is not a commitment to implement Real ID, rather it will allow us to fully evaluate the impact of the final regulations and precede with necessary policy deliberations prior to a final decision on compliance," DMV director George Valverde wrote.

States have until March 31 to request a two-year extension, and DHS had said before Thursday it won't grant Real ID extensions to states who don't commit to implementing the rules in the future.

That meant Tuesday's letter looked like enough to join California to the small rebellion against the Real ID rules.

For Californians that would mean enduring the same fate facing citizens of South Carolina, Maine, Montana and New Hampshire.

They would have needed to dig out their passport, if they had one, every time they boarded a plane, or go through an extra level of TSA screening at airport metal detectors. Los Angeles and San Francisco airports could have had security lines stretching to the Sierras.

Californians would also have been barred from buying certain medicine, entering federal court buildings or getting help at the Social Security Administration, unless they have a passport.

But after Threat Level provided Homeland Security spokesman Laura Keehner with the letter, Keehner said California's commitment to thinking about commitment is good enough.

"For right now, there is nothing that says they will not comply with Real ID," Keehner said.

Even though California just said it might not comply with Real ID, Keehner said that's fine since there was an ongoing process that might lead to compliance.

"It is different than saying we are not complying with Real ID," Keehner said. "If they were saying that, they would not get an extension."

At issue are long-delayed rules that require states to collect, verify and store birth and marriage certificates for nearly all citizens who have state-issued licenses or identification cards.

That means almost every driver's license holder will have to get certified documents and go into the DMV to get a new license – and many will likely have to go in more than once.

The rules also require the nation's DMVs to interconnect their systems to prevent duplicate licenses and conform to federal standards for the physical cards themselves. DHS estimates the changes will cost from $4 to $20 billion, but is only offering some $80 million in direct funds.

In early January when DHS unveiled the final rules, Secretary Michael Chertoff said Real ID would make the country safer.

"For about $8 per license, Real ID will give law enforcement and security officials a powerful advantage against falsified documents, and it will bring some peace of mind to citizens wanting to protect their identity from theft by a criminal or illegal alien," Chertoff said.

Maine, Montana, South Carolina and New Hampshire are fighting the mandate, saying the rules violate state rights, will cost them billions and intrude on citizens' privacy rights.

The states aren't alone. Interest groups ranging from the AARP, the right wing Eagle Forum and the ACLU oppose the rules, and Homeland Security's own outside privacy advisers explicitly refused to endorse Real ID as "workable or appropriate" in 2007.

In February, New Hampshire asked for the extension, but also said that the request is "not an indication of our state's intent to comply with the Real ID final rule." In 2007, New Hampshire lawmakers passed, and Democratic governor John Lynch signed, a law banning New Hampshire from complying with Real ID.

So far, DHS has not accepted New Hampshire's request for an extension.

DHS says that it is committed to rejecting the rebel states' driver's licenses as acceptable proof of identification come May 11.

DHS spokesman Russ Knocke told Threat Level two weeks ago that citizens need to lay the blame for any inconveniences on their state officials and suggested the residents apply for passports now.

Keehner reiterated that that there "will be real consequences for states whose leadership chooses not to comply."

For instance, showing up with a driver's license at the airport "will be the same as showing up with no license currently," Keehner said.

She added that Secretary Chertoff held a conference call today with a number of governors to talk about Real ID, and that included Governor Mark Sanford of the rogue state of South Carolina. The group is "working together on going forward," Keehner said.

Bill Scannell, a spokesman for the Identity Project which is fighting Real ID, questioned whether DHS can keep its hard line if California joins the mix.

"California has stated quite clearly they do not intend to comply with Real ID," Scannell said. "It begs the the question: Will DHS be playing hardball with the big 40-ton gorilla California in the same way it has been slapping around little tiny New Hampshire? Their issues are the same."

The letter from California comes a little more than a week after Assembly member Pedro Nava, the head of the Transportation committee in the California legislature, introduced a resolution calling on California's congressional crew to rewrite the rules because they were too expensive and privacy invasive.

Update: This story was changed substantially after DHS spokeswoman Laura Keehner said that the letter would not lose California's extension. The original version relied on the presumption that it could.

See Also: