Administrative/Regulatory
Aug. 16, 2016
Budget concerns spur substantial changes to driver's license revocation bill
A bill that would have curbed the state's ability to revoke driver's licenses over unpaid traffic fines has been heavily amended amid concerns it would take a major revenue stream from California's cash-strapped court system.
Daily Journal Staff Writer
A bill that would have curbed the state's ability to revoke driver's licenses over unpaid traffic fines has been heavily amended amid concerns it would take a major revenue stream from California's cash-strapped court system.
The revised version of SB 881 will instead extend a traffic ticket amnesty program signed by the governor last year. Meanwhile, SB 881 backers including the ACLU of Northern California and the Western Center on Law & Poverty have sued two court systems and placed several others on warning over their license revocation practices. A July 26 letter from the Judicial Council warned that, as originally written, SB 881 could result in $150 million to $400 million in lost revenues annually, with $60 million to $160 million coming directly from the courts. A June 21 letter from the California State Association of Counties said the bill "takes away a tool the courts use to collect fines and fees" and "eliminates any incentive for individuals to pay outstanding debt for traffic violations."
Gov. Jerry Brown's administration echoed these concerns in meetings with proponents of the bill in early August, said Mike Herald, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law & Poverty.
"They are beginning to worry about next year's budget," Herald said. "There was a huge drop in revenues in June. They are very reluctant to backfill court funding with general fund revenue."
On the same day the Assembly Appropriations Committee amended SB 881 in Sacramento, the Judicial Council's Court Facilities Advisory Committee heard testimony in San Francisco about "third-world facilities" and courtrooms the size of "a master bedroom." Since 2009, $1.4 billion has been taken from the Judicial Council's Immediate and Critical Needs Account in order to plug holes in the state's general fund and day-to-day court operations.
Herald said the administration is seeking a long-term solution to address court funding. But he added many fines go uncollected because people give up in the face of mounting fees and the job losses that often come with not being able to drive.
SB 881 will now extend the sunset date of a traffic fine amnesty program from next March 31 to the end of 2017. SB 405 allows low-income drivers to pay off traffic tickets and related fees at reduced rates.
Both bills were carried by Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys . Hertzberg's office pointed to figures from the Judicial Council showing that between Oct. 1, 2015, and April 30, the amnesty program helped 104,105 people regain driving privileges and brought in $12.5 million after expenses. The same report shows that 612,831 Californians currently have their licenses suspended over failure to pay or appear for traffic violations.
"Our traffic amnesty program shows that Californians want to abide by the law, pay their traffic fines and keep their driver's licenses, if they can," Hertzberg said.
But the Judicial Council countered that the amnesty program has coincided with a large net reduction in collections and said even the revised bill will cut into court funding.
"The trial courts cannot continue to withstand additional revenue losses," said Judge Harold Hopp, presiding judge of Riverside County Superior Court . "I am concerned that an extension of an amnesty program that was already 18 months long would reward those who continue to fail to meet their responsibility to their community."
In June, the ACLU sent demand letters to superior courts in 17 California counties on behalf of a coalition that includes the Western Center. These state that "the court may only act to suspend a license for failure to pay if the person 'willfully' failed to do so" and warned the courts should not use suspensions "as a means to generate revenue."
To date, two counties have been sued: Rubicon Programs et al. v. Superior Court of Solano, FCS047212 (Solano Super. Ct., filed June 15, 2016) and Alvarado et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, BC628849 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 2, 2016).
malcolm_ maclachlan@dailyjournal.com
Malcolm Maclachlan
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com