Which U.S. states have considered adopting EDLs in the last decade, and why did those efforts succeed or fail?
Executive summary
Over the last decade roughly 20 U.S. states have launched, tested, or formally considered electronic or mobile driver’s licenses (EDLs or mDLs), with early pilots in Iowa and Louisiana and more recent bills or rollouts in states such as Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, Utah, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Alabama [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Success or failure in each jurisdiction has hinged not on a single issue but on a mix of political appetite, interoperability and security standards, privacy concerns, and federal coordination such as REAL ID rules and guidance from agencies and standards bodies [7] [8] [2].
1. Early adopters and pilots: Iowa and Louisiana set the template
Iowa was the first state to pilot a mobile license program beginning in 2016 and by the early 2020s was moving ahead with plans that layered biometrics and stronger security into its mobile offering [2], while Louisiana’s LA Wallet—enabled by a 2016 legislative authorization—became the first statewide digital ID product launched in 2018 and achieved notable adoption rates, with industry trackers reporting strong user uptake as of 2023 [3] [2]. These early efforts demonstrated feasibility and produced templates for state IT departments and vendors, but they also exposed the practical need for clear standards on how phones communicate identity data for in-person and remote verification [3] [7].
2. Mid-decade spread and vendor partnerships: Apple and state cohorts
By late 2021 roughly 20 states had at least considered or tested digital licenses, and several—Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma and Utah—publicly partnered with major platform vendors such as Apple to enable credentials in smartphone wallets, illustrating how vendor ecosystems influenced which states moved faster [1]. Those partnerships accelerated deployments where political leadership and technical readiness aligned, but they also raised new questions about vendor lock-in and cross-platform interoperability that slowed universal adoption in other states [1] [7].
3. The policy bottlenecks: privacy, law enforcement, and federal rules
Privacy advocates warned that some architectures—especially those using continuous device‑to‑device communications rather than one-time barcode scans—could enable intrusive tracking; groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center branded certain approaches as dystopian, helping to stall or reshape bills in some legislatures [2]. At the federal level, legislation and guidance around identity standards and protections—such as limits on federal agencies seizing devices or accessing other phone data when a digital ID is presented—became important guardrails states had to reconcile with their mDL designs [8]. Those dual pressures forced slower, more security‑focused rollouts and sometimes legislative additions specifying privacy and device-access limits [8] [2].
4. Recent legislative action and varied outcomes (2024–2026 window)
Into 2024–2026, activity increased: Minnesota considered a bill to authorize electronic licenses as soon as 2026 (H.F. 1335) and public agencies weighed implementation logistics [4]; New Hampshire publicly budgeted and planned a 2026 digital license initiative [5]; and Alabama’s 2026 HB110 would authorize a state-approved mobile app while specifying limits on device access by law enforcement [6]. These contemporary proposals show the same pattern: bills pass or progress where legislators include explicit privacy/security language and align DMV capacity, while proposals stall where those assurances or funding are missing [4] [5] [6].
5. Why some efforts succeeded and others faltered—an anatomy
Successful adopters combined several factors: an early pilot that proved technical viability (Iowa, Louisiana), vendor or federal coordination to satisfy interoperability and REAL ID concerns, explicit legal language protecting user privacy and device data, and sufficient budgets for secure rollouts [2] [3] [8] [7]. Failures or delays tended to trace to unresolved privacy objections, lack of a consensus technical standard, legislative reluctance to fund or regulate vendor choices, or concerns that digital schemes might conflict with federal ID rules—issues repeatedly highlighted in reporting and technical analyses [2] [7] [8].
6. The hidden agendas and open questions shaping the next wave
Industry players and platform vendors push rapid adoption because of product expansion and market lock‑in, while privacy groups and some civil‑liberties advocates push back to force stronger legal protections—an adversarial dynamic that often shapes legislative language and pace [1] [2]. Federal interest, including assessments required by statute and potential executive actions, could accelerate standardization and adoption if tied to funding or federal service access, but current reporting shows that much still depends on state-by-state political choices and technical readiness [8] [9] [7].