End to driver’s license suspensions for nonpayment would help poor, hurt budget

A budget bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown could reduce collections for traffic fines and fees by $40 million to $100 million annually, according to a recent estimate from the Judicial Council.

The change was contained in AB 103, a 34,700-word public safety omnibus bill Brown approved on June 27 as part of his budget negotiations with the Legislature. Among the bill’s many provisions is wording that bars local courts and the Department of Motor Vehicles from suspending driver’s licenses due to a failure to pay traffic fines and fees.

Courts are still allowed to suspend a defendant’s driver’s license for failure to appear in court.

The unpublished Judicial Council estimate was originally prepared in reaction to SB 185. This bill by Sen. Robert M. Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, contains the license suspension provisions as well as several others designed to protect indigent defendants.

The license suspension language from SB 185 was added to AB 103 earlier in June, when the bill was in the Senate. The passage of the long-sought change marks a major step forward for advocates who claim the legal system in California unfairly punishes people for being poor.

“Large fines for minor traffic infractions force many people to go into debt and lose their driver’s licenses, and that can result in them losing their jobs,” Hertzberg said in a June 10 press release after SB 185 passed the Assembly Transportation Committee.

The Judicial Council and its supporters generally have not challenged the idea that current California laws can be unfair to low-income people. But they also say these laws were passed by the Legislature and signed by governors, who have also underfunded the court system.

Other portions of SB 185 could also lead to shortfalls for the courts. For instance, the bill would mandate reduced fines for indigent defendants and impose potentially costly notification requirements for defendants.

“The Judicial Council does not have a position on SB 185, but will continue to advocate for court funding to backfill court operations that may be impacted,” said Judicial Council Administrative Director Martin Hoshino.

“Over the last two years, the chief justice and the Judicial Council have made rule changes to better inform defendants of their rights in infraction cases,” Hoshino added.

Policies enacted this year require courts to send notices to defendants before hearings and post self-help information for defendants on their websites. The Judicial Council has committed to study a proposal to decriminalize minor traffic violations.

A June 27 Judicial Council memo issued in reaction to the new state budget noted “$70.7 million in new funding.” Long-sought additional spending was added late in the process for legal aid services and court-appointed dependency counsel.

But the memo also warned of “potential revenue losses” from the driver’s license suspension policy and sought to hold the Brown administration to a commitment to provide “relief through the existing budget process.”

The Judicial Council’s estimates of $40 million to $100 million are based partly on revenue numbers reported by courts that have stopped suspending licenses. About a third of this money would come out of trial court operations and construction.

The courts studied include Los Angeles, Contra Costa, San Francisco and Solano counties. Several counties stopped suspending licenses after a coalition of groups including the ACLU of Northern California sued the courts in Los Angeles and Solano last year, as well as the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

The plaintiffs claimed the suspensions violated the constitutional rights of low-income drivers. Several other courts received demand letters to stop the practice.

According to Rebekah B. Evenson, director of litigation and advocacy at Bay Area Legal Aid, Los Angeles and Solano counties are engaged in settlement talks. She is one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Solano County and DMV cases, but is not involved in the Los Angeles County case.

The DMV case, Evenson added, has been directly affected by AB 103. Her group is now seeking to force the agency to lift the suspensions on approximately 600,000 people whose licenses are currently suspended due to failure to pay or appear.

“We are not talking at all about licenses suspended for DUI or engaging in dangerous behavior on the road,” Evenson said. “We’re trying to stop the courts and the DMV from using license suspensions as a lever to induce people to pay fines and fees they can’t afford.”

Elisa Della-Piana, the legal director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, said the license suspension change is just one part of a larger set of changes her group advocates.

Another step, she said, is lowering California’s traffic fines and fees, which are the highest in the country.

“I’m all for more funding for the courts, and for a steady stream of funding instead of making courts rely on fines and fees that are harming low-income Californians,” Della-Piana said.