Nonetheless, Defendants have presented evidence which they maintain shows
DSHS was concerned with, and attempted to address, a real potential for fraud in implementing
Section 181.
Specifically, in 2008 DSHS was contacted by the Consul General of Mexico who inquired
whether consular identification, specifically the Mexican matricula, was no longer acceptable.
(Def. Resp. Decl. of Connelly ¶ 3). According to Defendants, research undertaken by DSHS
“revealed that matriculas are issued by individual Mexican Consulates in the United States, and
that the Consulates do not maintain a centralized database that keeps track of persons who have
been issued a matricula and which consular office issued the person a matricula.” (Id. Decl. of
Harris ¶ 3). Additionally, the research revealed that Mexican Consulates did not verify the
authenticity of the documents presented by persons seeking a matricula, and that registrars in only
four of twenty states responding to DSHS’ inquiry accepted the matricula as stand-alone
identification. (Id.). Further, when conducting its research, DSHS learned of, and apparently
relied heavily on, “extensive research” which had already been performed by the United States
Government. (Def. Resp. Decl. of Connelly ¶ 4). Specifically noted is testimony provided to
Congress by the FBI that neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice recognized the matricula
as a valid form of identification, nor did United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement. (Id.).
DSHS informed the Consul General by letter dated June 20, 2008 that the matricula would no
longer be accepted as an independent verification of identity.
Contrast the defendants use of 2008 information about who recognised the ID back then, with:
Plaintiffs, in turn, argue Defendants’ research and conclusions are outdated. In support
of this assertion, they provided the affidavit of the Consul General of the United Mexican States
(“Mexico”) located in Austin, Texas.
(Plf. Reply Aff. of Gonzalez Gutierrez).
The affidavit
testimony establishes that, in 2006, Mexico improved the security features of the consular
identification card by beginning “operation of a centralized database including biometrics, decoded
information of the bearer using bi-dimensional code bars and other methods used according to
international standards.” (Id. ¶ 14). Further, in November 2014, Mexican consulates across the
United States started issuing a new version of the consular identification card, which has
additional security measures including biometrics of the applicant with embedded identity data,
upgraded design features of the card itself, and a photograph that is clearer than on past versions.
(Id. ¶¶ 16, 21-27).
In addition, Plaintiffs cite the affidavit of Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo (“Acevedo”).
Acevedo states he considers both the current, newest Mexican matricula and its 2012 predecessor
to be “a completely safe and secure identity document” which his department accepts routinely
and considers “to be as safe and secure as a Texas driver's license.” (Plf. Reply Decl. of Acevedo
¶¶ 7-8). Acevedo additionally notes he is familiar with practices of other police departments in the
area, and they also use and accept the matricula as a safe and secure form of identity. (Id. ¶ 11).
Plaintiffs’ evidence concerning recent upgrades to the Mexican matricula does indicate
Defendants’ concern regarding the ability to fabricate or readily tamper with the document may
well be outdated.
= new reply since forum marked as read
