1)(a) The department shall, upon successful completion of all required examinations and payment of the required fee, issue to every applicant qualifying therefor, a driver's license as applied for, which license shall bear thereon a color photograph or digital image of the licensee; the name of the state; a distinguishing number assigned to the licensee; and the licensee's full name, date of birth, and mailing address; a brief description of the licensee, including, but not limited to, the licensee's gender and height; and the dates of issuance and expiration of the license. A space shall be provided upon which the licensee shall affix his or her usual signature. No license shall be valid until it has been so signed by the licensee except that the signature of said licensee shall not be required if it appears thereon in facsimile or if the licensee is not present within the state at the time of issuance. Applicants qualifying to receive a Class A, Class B, or Class C driver's license must appear in person within the state for issuance of a color photographic or digital imaged driver's license pursuant to s. 322.142.
(b) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a), each license must exhibit the class of vehicle which the licensee is authorized to operate and any applicable endorsements or restrictions. If the license is a commercial driver's license, such fact must be exhibited thereon.
(2) The department may require other pertinent information to be exhibited on a driver's license.
So, nowhere does it state that a persons face has to be fully exposed. I guess that up until now, that aspect was a no-brainer. I mean, it was implied that if you need to be identified, your whole face needs to be exposed. I'm sure after this episode, the 2003 Statutes will have something about this in them.
So she might have some legs to stand on here. But I still submit that driving a car is NOT a right, and that is what the state is going to go with.