One of Michigan Representative Paul Scott’s recent campaign promises for Secretary of State is not like the others. Scott’s announcement letter included four priorities:

-Require a valid social security number before issuing a driver’s license

-Encrypt the RFID chips used in driver’s licenses

-Repeal driver responsibility fees

-Ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the gender on their license.

The first three policies represent a step down the road to progress: they will certainly generate debate but are clearly rooted in some merit.

The last policy, however, is only superficial; it masquerades as progress while advancing nothing.

Whether you support the “plight” of transgender individuals or not, it’s clear that Rep. Scott’s policy accomplishes little.

He claims “It’s a social values issue. If you are born a male, you should be known as a male. Same as with a female, she should be known as a female,” he said.

This is faux progress. Values are great. Values are important parts of our humanity and holding them in high regard should be celebrated. Values will certainly remain a focal point in the debate over same-sex marriage. However, we’re discussing a driver’s license.

A driver’s license is the primary form of identification in our society. It serves as a verification of residence, appearance, and age. In order to verify one’s appearance, gender, or the perception thereof, is paramount to a police officer or government employee’s ability to do their job.

Can you imagine conducting an investigation while searching for a suspect whose physical features contradict the government record? In order for a photo ID to accomplish it’s intended purpose it must serve as a stand-alone document. A driver’s license has no footnotes.

Scott claims it will protect citizens from cross-dressers sneaking into public bathrooms, but when was the last time anyone was carded at the bathroom door?

Paul Scott’s platform and announcement letter encompassed plenty of controversy without this needless addition. 

The Secretary of State should aim to protect the citizenry, something this policy will not do. It may even have the opposite effect: adding confusion to bogged-down institutions, like hospitals and police departments, further inhibiting their effectiveness.

Regardless of political stance, priorities rooted in personal beliefs are honorable. But Paul Scott is no such hero. Making this issue a priority doesn’t serve the people of Michigan —a state already facing extreme crises— but simply acts as a vote-garnering talking point.

Remember now, these issues were Scott’s top four priorities. Yet 25% of them are worthless. If Scott can’t even pick the four best policies out of a long list of many (the letter can be found online, and is chock full of Scott’s political views) than how well can he be expected to lead?

If Rep. Scott wants to stand for values there are countless valid, equally controversial, ways to do. Prioritizing policies related to abortion, an issue with which he has extensive experience in the legislature, would at minimum, advance the road toward compromise and progress in Michigan.

Exposing something as concrete and fundamental as a photo ID to interpretation and misuse will not