The blind, for instance.

People who don't have access to cars in which they can practice driving, as well.

Many states issue picture ID that's not a driver's license. Tom has mentioned that California does this. So does Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania, you have to bring in official documents to prove your identity before you can be issued a driver's license. The non-driver ID is issued by the DMV, so the same identification standards apply.

The US Dept of State does not recognize non-driver state ID cards as valid proof of identity, but it universally accepts state driver's licenses, for people applying for US passports. The reason given: some states don't apply the same proof-of-identity procedures to non-driver ID as they do to driver's licenses.

If we are going to use driver's licenses as universal picture ID, we need an alternative to offer to people who either can't or don't drive.

If we are going to offer this alternative, the standards for its issuance, in all states, must be as stringent as that for driver's licenses. If we are going to do this in an attempt to head off fraud and impersonation, it's essential that all citizens be held to the same standard, to assure equal application of the law.

And, incidentally, it will make it a lot easier for an elderly person who is no longer driving to get a passport if the people at State can accept those non-driver ID cards. An old man with limited vision who can take a taxi but who can't drive ought to be able to apply for a passport without having to bring someone with a driver's license along to sign an affidavit affirming that he is who he says he is. It's hard enough to be old without your own government insisting that you bring your nanny in to sign for you.