Opinion ID: 852218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Substantive Due ProcessRational Advancement of Legitimate State Interest

Text: Substantive due process ensures that state action is not arbitrary or capricious regardless of the procedures used. Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind.1990). In setting forth a claim, a party must show either that the law infringes upon a fundamental right or liberties deeply rooted in our nation's history or that the law does not bear a substantial relation to legitimate state interests. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). Appellants do not assert that driving is a fundamental right. (Appellants' Br. at 22-23.) See Mitchell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 112 (Ind.1995) (Neither this Court nor the United States Supreme Court has ever held driving to be a fundamental right.). Instead, they argue that the Bureau's action does not rationally further a legitimate state interest. They argue that no Indiana or federal law ... states that an Indiana resident's legal name is what is in the records maintained by the SSA and that it is irrational to redefine legal name... to be the name appearing on social security records. (Appellants' Br. at 23.) Appellants further claim that the system the Bureau established irrationally does not recognize one's legal name and would not recognize any name change, even one that was the product of a formal court sanctioned name change, or divorce decree, or marriage, unless the name change is first recorded with the SSA. (Appellant's Br. at 24.) The Bureau responds by pointing out that the requirement of a legal name is only one of twelve requirements for an application for a driver's license. (Appellee's Br. at 23 (citing Ind.Code § 9-24-9-2(b)).) Another is the applicant's Social Security number. Ind.Code §§ 9-24-9-2; X-XX-XX-X. We agree with the trial court that [t]he State of Indiana, through the BMV, has legitimate interests in both the integrity of its records and in protecting its citizens against fraud and identity theft. (App. at ¶ 50 (citing Mitchell, 659 N.E.2d at 116).) As we have already indicated, one's legal name does not have a stable or undisputed definition. As such, the Bureau has not redefined legal name. It simply seeks to verify a person's identity by requiring federal records to match. Instead of taking on the task of maintaining citizens' names, it has relied on the government agency most widely used for such purposes. If one would like to use another name on one's license, one need only seek such a change with the Social Security Administration before the Bureau. Social Security's public website appears to indicate that a decree from an Indiana court would provide sufficient evidence of the change for its purposes. Social Security Online Program Operations Manual System (POMS), RM 00203.210 Changing Numident Name Data https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/ XXXXXXXXXX. If Appellants cannot by any other means convince Social Security to change their names, they can petition an Indiana court and obtain an order doing so. This burden is especially light considering Hauptly's requirement that a court recognize by order any nonfraudulent name change. [14] We cannot say that the Bureau's requirement that Appellants, at most, petition for a name change, take the court order to Social Security for a change in its records, and provide the Bureau documentation of Social Security's change constitutes a burden so unreasonable as to be unconstitutional. The arrangement does rationally advance the legitimate state interest of preventing identity theft. Whether it might if harshly administered run afoul of due process is a question for another day.