* Monday press release…
The Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Chicago) today filed a complaint in federal court against the Illinois Secretary of State’s (SOS) office and Secretary Jesse White to address language in an official form stating that when an individual has his or her picture taken at a SOS facility while wearing a kufi (religious skullcap) or hijab (religious head covering), they may not remove their religious headwear in public or else they risk having their driver’s license or ID cancelled.
Specifically, the form states:
“In observation of my religious convictions, I only remove my head dressing in public when removal is necessary (such as for a medical examination or a visit to a hair dresser or barber). I do not remove the head dressing in public as a matter of courtesy or protocol (such as when entering a professional office or attending a worship service). I acknowledge that if the Director of the Driver Services Department is provided with evidence showing I do not wear a religious head dressing at all times while in public, unless circumstances require the removal of the head dressing, my driver’s license or identification card may be canceled.”
CAIR-Chicago’s lawsuit seeks to prohibit the continued use of the form by the Secretary of State since such matters are to be reserved for the religious beliefs of each individual applicant. The form violates the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment (through Section 1983), which prohibits religious discrimination by governmental agencies. CAIR-Chicago’s client, who wears a hijab, was forced to sign the form, or she would have been denied a license.
“The State should not be in the position of forcing people to choose between acquiring a necessary form of ID or a needed driver’s license and the free practice of their religion,” said Phil Robertson, Litigation Director for CAIR-Chicago. “There are a host of instances in which religious headwear may need to be removed while in public, and people should not be concerned that doing so will jeopardize their future ability to drive. With the upcoming Labor Day Weekend, the least our clients should have to worry about is their licenses being voided.”
The complaint is here.
* Sun-Times…
Part of the issue is that a person might temporarily remove their religious head covering in public for a reason the Illinois rule does not consider an exception. Those instances include medical duress, excessive heat or simple discomfort, the lawsuit states. […]
Secretary of State Jesse White’s office did not reply Monday evening to requests for comment.
The rule in question is Illinois Administrative Code Title 92, which states driver’s photographed with head coverings must sign an “acknowledgement that, if the Director of the Driver Services Department obtains evidence showing the driver does not wear religious head dressings at all times while in public, unless circumstances require the removal of the head dressing, the driver’s license may be cancelled.”
The rule does allow a driver to remove a “head dressing in public when removal is necessary (such as for a medical examination or a visit to a hair dresser or barber).”
- confused - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 10:21 am:
Complaint seems to be without merit to me.
Drivers license photos generally prohibit headwear for good reason. Illinois is making an accommodation for people who say that it is against their religion to remove their headwear in public. So why shouldn’t they have to get a new license photo if their claim turns out to be false?
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 10:35 am:
If the headdress doesn’t obscure the face what’s the problem?A person can change his/her hairstyle and color or drive around with a wig on. The hair doesn’t give you much to go on identity wise.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 10:48 am:
And now with face recognition software something on your head isn’t hiding you anyways. Isn’t that the point of the picture, identification?
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 10:48 am:
Does this also apply to the lovely people that can get their id photos with the colander on their head?
- Give Me A Break - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 10:53 am:
I understand the face recogn. issue, but this seems as strange to me as when I renewed my drivers license and had to remove by eyeglasses for the photo.
The only way anyone would ever seen me without my glasses would be in the middle of the night when I am sleeping.
- Been There - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 11:08 am:
Not sure what side I take on this but if someone wears a hat 99% of the time they would look different also. Do they lose their license then? Of course not. The pictures only tell so much.
- @misterjayem - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 11:09 am:
If Rich shaved his beard, he would no longer look like the photo on his state ID — and would be unrecognizable to almost everyone — but nevertheless he wouldn’t be risking the cancellation of his driver’s license.
Until Rich is required to maintain his beard to keep his driver’s license, people who wear religious headwear should not be required to sign this form.
– MrJM
- Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 11:19 am:
There are head coverings such as hats or wigs which should be no problem. And then there head coverings that obscure the face such as veils or full hijab. Those are problems.
The rule should distinguish among coverings.
- A guy - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 11:19 am:
ID is for identification. I’ve always been supportive of this headwear when they in fact wear it all the time in public (nuns in the Christian faith, Rabbis and Orthodox Jews, etc, too)
I don’t think the form is too much for any of these people whose faith requires the cover. Beards, hair color, etc. are all different because they are natural human traits.
Think this way: You can’t wear a fake mustache to alter your appearance. But, you could wear a hairpiece or wig.
The principle is to not artificially alter your appearance with an accessory. It’s not an onerous requirement.
- @misterjayem - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 11:29 am:
“Beards, hair color, etc. are all different because they are natural human traits.”
A man’s shaved face is not a “natural human trait” — it’s why Gillette sells razors.
– MrJM
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 11:39 am:
===A man’s shaved face is not a “natural human trait”===
Back in the day, if you wanted to travel to the Soviet Bloc countries, your visa pic had to match your passport pic. That meant, if you had a beard in your visa and not in your passport, you had to shave and get a new visa.
- A guy - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 11:40 am:
==A man’s shaved face is not a “natural human trait” ==
Respectfully beg to differ JM. Facial hair and it’s treatment is a human trait. I concede it changes appearance to a degree, but it’s not an unnatural augmentation.
- A guy - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 11:42 am:
==Back in the day, if you wanted to travel to the Soviet Bloc countries, your visa pic had to match your passport pic. That meant, if you had a beard in your visa and not in your passport, you had to shave and get a new visa.==
2 hours in the Gulag with that Gillette Razor changed you.
- Occasional Quipper - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 12:12 pm:
It’s one thing to allow the free practice of religion, but it’s a completely different thing when religions start making requirements of the government to make exceptions for them. Mormons had to give up polygamy to follow the law of the land when the Morill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed. When it went to the Supreme Court in 1879 in Reynolds v. United states, the court upheld the act stating “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices”. (credit to Wikipedia.)
So based on that, surely a person can be required to take off their head wear long enough for a simple picture. And if a person still insists that the law interferes with the free practice of some tenet of their religion, they really should examine why they believe what they believe and if it’s actually honoring to the higher power they believe in or if it’s a man-made rule created for purposes of control by the leaders of that religion.
- Chicagonk - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 12:25 pm:
I think hijabs should be allowed, but that is it. Face-veiling shouldn’t be allowed.
- revvedup - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 1:11 pm:
The suit has merit, simply because the State lacks the legal power to tell the people they can’t remove their headgear/clothing. It would be the same if I put a hat ON, and the State voided my license as a result. This was somebody’s dumb idea, and I’ll bet Jessie White had a fit when he found out (or finds out).
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:24 pm:
Some people: “Muslims need to get with the program, this is America.”
Same people: “Cook County is forcing its values on us.”
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 11:44 pm:
This practice already exists at the federal level for the U.S. Passport.
===You cannot wear a hat or head covering.
If you wear a hat or head covering for religious purposes, submit a signed statement that verifies that the hat or head covering in your photo is part of traditional religious attire worn continuously in public.
If you wear a hat or head covering for medical purposes, submit a signed doctor’s statement verifying the hat or head covering in your photo is used daily for medical purposes.
Your full face must be visible and your hat or head covering cannot obscure your hairline or cast shadows on your face.====
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/requirements/photos.html