First of all, I appreciate what you do and what you are attempting to do with the amicus briefs you’ve submitted. The brief submitted in the Packingham case was spot on. In this case, I’m just concerned about how they are going to view such an alternative. Without saying it, offering an alternative gives credence to the state’s argument that this furthers a legitimate state interest to have an identifier on the license (it doesn’t). Any attorney that knows how to work the system is going to use this alternative against us in our fight against the IML because that’s exactly what we are fighting against is an identifier on passports. They are going to question why it’s ok to be put on a license, but not a passport. For this reason, I think I might have preferred no amici in this situation rather than the brief submitted as I believe it shoots us in the foot on a more important national argument.
I am merely requesting that when briefs are submitted that we don’t offer compromising alternatives that are against what we stand for.