TCJC had earlier this spring submitted written testimony to the committee recommending reforms and there were faint hints of some of those proposals in their draft, though in my estimation the recommendations were far too tepid. For example, they agreed to change from three consecutive years of surcharges to a single year with a payment plan, but the reductions in the draft document - none for DWIs, $100 for other offenses - aren't large enough to entice people whose surcharge debt may run into the thousands.
All of the suggestions in the draft legislation were forward looking, taking effect for cases after September 2015.; none of them addressed the backlog of drivers owing surcharges, including around 1.4 million who presently have no licenses because of surcharge nonpayment.
It was particularly disappointing that the draft did not direct the Department of Public Safety to implement another Amnesty program. They have the authority but have only ever done one and have said they don't plan to do another any time soon. But with hundreds of thousands of unpaid surcharges dating back a full decade, at this point, it will be impossible to clear out those old files without some sort of renewed or even beefed up Amnesty program, I told the committee.
The principle element of the bill would allow judges to dismiss charges for driving with no insurance or no license if they get the insurance or license within 20 days. Judges are probably already doing that, so it would codify an unwritten practice. A judge from Harris County (Hughes? I didn't get her name in my notes) testified that 20 days was too short for DWLI, because it took longer than that (perhaps up to 90 days) to schedule and take a DPS driving test if you don't have a driver's license.
Perhaps most significantly in the big picture, the draft would eliminate the three-year structure of the surcharge, reducing lower-level surcharges from $750 over three years to $650 assessed all at once. I told the committee that if drivers had the $650 they'd have bought insurance. Chairman Joe Pickett emphasized that amount could change and was just a placeholder; I acknowledged that and said our recommendation was that they'd need to lower the amount significantly to do much good. It's true, though that the staggered three-year civil payments on top of whatever crimnal fines were already paid has been a tremendous source of on-the ground confusion. If this bill passes, there will be just one un-just, unnecessary extra payment instead of three.
DWIs would also become a one-year surcharge under the committee draft but the amounts would stay the same: $3,000 total on the first offense, $4,500 on the second. DWIs already suffer from a 58% non-payment rate on surcharges, the committee was told. In past committee hearings, a rep from the Texas Association of Counties testified that DWI conviction rates had precipitously declined, mostly because judges and prosecutors were working with defense attorneys to find workarounds (like pleading to obstruction of a roadway) that don't incur surcharges. I suggested that if they thought drunk drivers should pay $3,000 they should put that in the criminal penalty and not have a separate, civil surcharge.
I meant to suggest, I see in my notes, that allowing deferred adjudication for DWI would give counties an option to prosecute DWIs without triggering the surcharge. But I forgot. Oops. Well, maybe their staff are readers.
Chairman Pickett emphasized repeatedly that he did not support getting rid of the Driver Responsibility surcharge, only modifying it slightly to address what he's dubbed are its most objectionable aspects. But how to judge which parts are the most objectionable? ¿Quien sabe? This baby is so reprehensible it deserves to be thrown out with the bathwater. Then set on fire. The swath of human misery this program has left in its wake is difficult to overstate. Very few judges or even prosecutors with first-hand experience have a kind word to say about the surcharge, one finds.
Speaking of which, Judge Edna Staudt, a Williamson County JP, made the excellent point that the thing the Lege liked about the program was the money but the thing causing all the problems is the policy of suspending driver's licenses for nonpayment. That's what's filling the jails and multiplying the number of offenders driving without insurance and/or with an invalid license. If you're looking for incremental reforms, why not eliminate all driver's license suspensions associated with nonpayment of surcharges? That'd mitigate much of the harm.
At this point, even the hospitals say they're fine with eliminating the Driver Responsibility program if the Lege will come up with some other source of funds for trauma hospitals, an idea with which nobody disagrees. All that's required is the political will to identify and implement a revenue source. TCJC suggested several in a 2013 report (pdf); a judge from Harris County suggested others today. And the truth is, the state will likely enjoy a surplus large enough next year that it could spend that sort of money volitionally - just because hospitals are a public good - without having to raise taxes. They could do it just by spending a portion of the budget surplus projected for the next biennium, if anybody really wanted to fix the problem.
Finally, just for my own reference, I should mention that while I was off for vacation the Texas Tribune published an item titled, "Driver program relies on lender fined by feds." Give it a read and see what you think: Something, or nothing? I'm a bit surprised none of those issues came up at today's hearing, which was narrowly focused on the proposed legislation.
MORE (8/5): See coverage from the Dallas News. A minor clarification: I am not "director" of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, I just work for them on this issue as a consultant. Also, reporter Christy Hoppe ID'd the judge mentioned above whose name I failed to record in my notes: Harris County Criminal Court Judge Jean Spradling Hughes. AND MORE: From Texas Public Radio.
See prior, related Grits posts:
- Judge: Driver Responsibility surcharge unfair, 'unconstitutional'
- Radio discussion of Texas' Driver Responsibility surcharge
- Lege ponders the effect of 'Driver Responsibility' surcharge on DWI convictions
- Could Texas Driver Responsibility Surcharge become an election issue? Examining reform suggestions
- DPS announces 'incentive program' rollout on driver surcharges
- Be thankful: Incentive program all the fix we're getting for now on surcharges
- Lege committee looking to tweak Driver Responsibility program; incentive program about to gear up
- Piling on: TPPF offers more reasons to abolish Driver Responsibility surcharge
- House rep promotes abolition of Driver Responsibility surcharge
- Is 2013 the year legislators axe Orwellian-named Driver Responsibility surcharge?
- Did the Driver Responsibility Surcharge cause Texas' voter ID law to be rejected?
- Few defendants getting surcharges waived by judges based on indigence
- Grits to DPS: Enact incentive rules for Driver Responsibility surcharge now
- Amendment tells DPS: Implement incentive rules for Driver Responsibility surcharge
- Hospitals: Driver Responsibility surcharge an unreliable funding source
- What's the one thing John Whitmire and Leo Berman have in common?
- Declining DWI convictions and the unmitigated failure of the Driver Responsibility surcharge
- Federal suit filed to declare Driver Responsibility surcharge unconstitutional
- DPS Director: No public safety benefit from Driver Responsibility Surcharge
- Prosecutors altering charging decisions to avoid Driver Responsibility surcharge
- Driver surcharge boosting Texas joblessness
- Unexplored costs from DPS surcharge harm safety, the economy
- Driver Responsibility surcharge 'devastating' for court system
- Bill author says 'overly punitive' Driver Responsibility surcharge a 'mistake'
.jpg)
26 comments:
Just last week, I met with a new probationer for the first time and was taken aback when she provided me with all the paperwork and research she had done into her suracharges. She told me her attorney informed her about the DRP surcharges. I've never had a probationer come to me with this knowledge before I told them about it. The times they are a-changin', but this program needs to die a highly visible and fiery death. I'm sure a ten cent tax on alcohol sales can provide more trauma center funds than the Comptroller will be able to handle.
So if I understand the argument we must not enforce laws (fines)if they cause a hardship on the perpetrator? Further, if we find that a law the majority abide by is disproportionally broken by the poor or unfortunate then we should grant them amnesty to relieve their burden? Sounds a lot like the border problem and the liberal thinking that handed us that fiasco, but then I'm only the law abiding citizen who willingly pays my taxes so you can continue to prop up the unfortunate who ignore our laws.
Just saying.
At 5:28 -- It's one thing to enforce the laws (and fines) that apply as a result of a traffic ticket or DWI. It's another thing to enforce ADDITIONAL MONETARY PENALTY (aka, this surcharge) ON TOP OF the already hefty fines. And this ADDITIONAL consequence forces one to lose his or her license, if not paid, even though the person may have paid the initial fines (court costs, jail time, etc.). How much blood are you wanting from that turnip? Sounds like you're wanting debtor prisons back? Nothing to do with the border crisis; nothing at all. Not a liberal/conservative issue. Simply double-jeopardy which is lining pockets of multiple entities with revenue.
First; if the additional monetary penalties are a published part of the deterrent to prevent a behavior how is it double-jeopardy? Second; the concept is relative to the border issue because it is the same thought process that nullifies one or more laws simply because they are a burden on the perpetrator. Third; it is a liberal/conservative issue precisely because the logic being argued is clearly personal responsibility vs victimhood.
As an aside, I'm not interested in bleeding the turnip just modifying it's behavior by enforcing consequences.
@5:28, as it turns out, you don't understand the argument.
@6:14, it's "double jeopardy" because there are two punishments - one criminal and civil - for the same offense. Many Republican judges agree. Your border analogy is weak and foolish. And your brand of conservatism appears to be of the Big Government variety where maximizing state power over the individual is the main goal. In Texas, conservatism tends to trend toward the "less government" wing, and folks of that ilk don't consider this program conservative in the least. Some of the most conservative pols in the state are critics of the surcharge.
BTW, here's an example of an actual, small-government constitutional conservative view (as opposed to a Big Government neocon stance) on the Driver Responsibility surcharge from the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Grits I’m a bit surprised by your aggressive response. I’ve read enough of your blog over the years to know you as a reasoned man who generally makes logical arguments for your opinions. Personal attacks are not your normal “go to” replies. You’ve grossly miscalculated my politics and values based on a few sentences from me and I won’t bore the readers with a defense but I will point out that you did not address my contention that your arguments for repeal or revision are flawed. Being subject to criminal and civil and criminal prosecution is not double jeopardy, if it were OJ could not have lost a civil case after being acquitted from the criminal proceeding.
However you have interpreted my dissention to your original piece bears little relevance to my contention that your argument is flawed from my conservative perspective. I don’t defend the law on the basis that it is just or wise or even effective. I simply intended to point out that the argument contending a law creates a hardship on those who violate it, hence those suffering the consequences of the violation are victims, is a classic liberal argument. If your knee jerk reaction is to attack me personally I must have hit a defensive nerve.
Grits I’m a bit surprised by your aggressive response. I’ve read enough of your blog over the years to know you as a reasoned man who generally makes logical arguments for your opinions. Personal attacks are not your normal “go to” replies. You’ve grossly miscalculated my politics and values based on a few sentences from me and I won’t bore the readers with a defense but I will point out that you did not address my contention that your arguments for repeal or revision are flawed. Being subject to criminal and civil and criminal prosecution is not double jeopardy, if it were OJ could not have lost a civil case after being acquitted from the criminal proceeding.
However you have interpreted my dissention to your original piece bears little relevance to my contention that your argument is flawed from my conservative perspective. I don’t defend the law on the basis that it is just or wise or even effective. I simply intended to point out that the argument contending a law creates a hardship on those who violate it, hence those suffering the consequences of the violation are victims, is a classic liberal argument. If your knee jerk reaction is to attack me personally I must have hit a defensive nerve.
1:58- the difference between DRP and other criminal and civil penalties is that with the DRP, you don't get your day in court to fight it. It's a civil penalty applied administratively. When you consider that a person convicted of a Class C Misdemeanor Driving While License Invalid charge has to pay a fine and court costs, then a surcharge for 3 years, PLUS a license reinstatement fee to TxDPS, the monetary penalty is ridiculous. When you also consider that driving is essential in Texas in order to make a living (especially for those most negatively effected by DRP), the penalties have a greater impact than on the top 1%ers. Hence, why so many drivers in Texas have chosen to run the risk of going to jail by driving just to make a buck. The state can make much more money off these folks by letting drive to work to earn a wage that they can then use to pay 8.25% in sales taxes.
I have zero sympathy for anyone hit with the surcharge. It's easy to avoid with just a bit of thought and not breaking the law. Perhaps instead of the surcharge, we can put the losers who incur this stuff to work cleaning roadways in Summer for a few hundred hours. I would be OK with making the surcharge $10,000, and keeping these morons off the roads forever. It's just not that hard to not drink and drive, and to not drive when your license is invalid. You have two feet, use them.
Another Amnesty program is needed.
Anyone who supports the DRP in its current form or any increase in its penalties doesn't understand the first thing about criminal justice or how the system is currently working--and that applies both to Chairman Whatchamacallit as well as our intrepid anonymous commenter. Comment streams like this one really give me little hope for sensible reform of our sick system any time soon.
Prison Doc
This is one of those issues that matter a lot that further discussion will be necessary. Thanks for sharing this relevant post.
@1:58, my point was that yours is simply NOT a conservative view by any historical standard of conservative ideology. That's not a personal attack, just an observation. Yours is a NEOconservative Big Government perspective and the antithesis of small-government conservatism. It's fine for you to hold that view, you're just mislabeling it. Here's an example of an actual small-government perspective on the program.
I know many conservative Republican judges who consider the civil surcharge double jeopardy and unconstitutional. Outside the hearing yesterday a Republican judge was interrogating me as to why there had been no formal constitutional challenge - she thinks it's because surcharge-owers are poor and can't afford lawyers to sue, but that if they did, they'd win.
Also, your analogy about OJ's criminal case and civil suit is so flawed and rife with misunderstanding it's hardly worth addressing, but let's try: Unlike in a civil suit, there's no recourse or defense for the surcharge and it can't be disputed before a judge - it's just an additional administrative punishment. If you can't see the difference between that and adversarial civil litigation, it's hard to imagine anything else I write here will get through to you. One needs a baseline understanding of the system to engage in these conversations.
@6:23, the surcharge has been assessed on more than 10 million people, 1.4 million of whom currently have no license because of non-payment. Given those numbers (there are only about 16 million or so Texas drivers total), the idea that it's easy to avoid the surcharge is nearly as silly as the idea that the state has resources to supervise 1.4 million people picking up trash on the roads. And of course, revoking someone's license doesn't mean people don't drive, it just means there are more unlicensed, uninsured drivers on the road. All your comment did was express anger; the actual content was so ridiculous it almost seemed like satire.
It is magical thinking to believe that increasing the scale of punishment to an offense can change the way people behave. Especially when applying vague, binary political distinctions (personal responsibility vs. victimhood) in understanding a far more complex situation. I prefer legal professionals who are both interested in the overall functioning and safety of societies, and who practice their profession to help as many individuals as possible maintain productive and worthwhile lives. This means restricting unsafe people for a period of time sometimes to keep everyone else safe. But the legislative viewpoint has so many limitations when it comes to changing people's behavior. There's such a wisdom in knowing your place, and the politically-inclined do not know their place. Ideally, there are criminal justice professionals and social workers who can take a human/compassionate view and want to help people better understand and repair their mistakes, and then find new paths to travel forward on. Unfortunately, there are others who are out of touch, and think aggression and use of accreditation and power enforcement is the most effective answer. And in the year 2014, this now goes for misdemeanor offenders? With all the potential deaths that drunk drivers COULD cause, these offenders DID NOT kill anybody by the mere fact that their charges were misdemeanors. So how do you move forward with them and minimize any future damage? Not by laying the groundwork for the offenders who aren't wealthy to get angry or overwhelmed. Whether by means of rational decisions or dysfunctional emotional responses, they will very likely stop listening to a government and private sector aggressively pursuing their personal funds from three or four angles by using their mistakes against them. This on top of restrictions to their personal freedom is just too much. I suspect people who support this program are blinded by some belief that they have more power to change people than they actually do. Or they have a stake in MSB, who indulges in a little sip from each monthly payment since so few can afford to pay the amount asked for in whole. Look at the facts and numbers, legislate accordingly, keep the roads safe and filled with insured drivers, and let other professionals who can help offenders do their job!
"Ideally, there are criminal justice professionals and social workers who can take a human/compassionate view "
No, no, no! Not about compassion! Professionals are about OUTCOMES. And by any reasonable measure overkill tuff-on-crime tactics generate worse outcomes than metric-based tactics based on crime rates and recidivism. We live in a virtually compassion-free society and that's the wrong axis to address these debates. Measurable effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis are the best ways to make these arguments. If those are the terms of debate, the surcharges eventually go away.
Yes, allow judges to dismiss charges for driving with no insurance or no license.
Grits, why do you think it is unreasonable to expect people who have lost their license to not drive? It's just not that hard to take your punishment and do what society has requested of you. Just like it isn't that hard to not drink and drive. Just don't do it. And yes, I did write out of anger. I've known a couple of people who had surcharges imposed who quietly paid the charges, waited out their license suspension without driving, then worked very hard to not commit another offense, realizing that they had done something wrong. The rest of the folks who have a surcharge ought to follow that path.
It's like Saint Paul said about Mosaid Law--it is too great a burden for people to be able to bear. Same with DRP: sorry, but most people have to be able to DRIVE to work and be productive. Not a lot of alternatives to driving in Texas. If they can't work or drive, they can't make money to pay the surcharge.
I'm glad Anon 10:06's friends can afford this but the vast majority cannot, and all you are doing with DRP is creating a big unemployable chronic criminal class.
Prison Doc
What's funny is that cops are paying them, too. Sure, the ask for a favor based on their position. Once we tell them it has to be verified with their agency the simply pay up. Meaning their agency doesn't even know about it. Yep, nice system we have. Someone should check how many DPS employees are subjected to this program. You might be surprised.
In a first DWI case where the defendant wins their ALR case and loses the criminal case, gets probation and takes a class there is no suspension. However, that person if unable to pay the 3 year $1000/yr surcharge will lose their license. A $3000 surcharge going to trauma centers in cases with no victim or even an accident or actual evidence of bad driving is absurd when the actual fine for the offense is limited to $2000 and is usually closer to $500. This is government gone wild. Why not do the same thing to people who drive 20 mph over the speed limit in a 35 mph or less zone or run (not roll) a red light or stop sign both of which can kill or injure some as easily as driving buzzed? This is demonization of drinking and driving which when not combined with traffic violations is no more unsafe than someone doing 120 in a 55...where is their $3000 surcharge? Hey folks, have a word with your state rep and senator.
"Grits, why do you think it is unreasonable to expect people who have lost their license to not drive? "
Because empirically, people still drive when their license is suspended. That's the reality the government must deal with; whatever you think people should do, there's a need to deal with how people actually behave in the world.
"the surcharge has been assessed on more than 10 million people"
Documentation?
"Ideally, there are criminal justice professionals and social workers who can take a human/compassionate view."
What's humane about getting drunk and plowing into an oncoming car? Anyone could be hit by one of these drunk drivers. Who's stuck in a morass? While we are so compassionate, remember-- the family that was hit didn't decide to put people's lives in danger.
Don't be dense, 9:51. The percentage of surcharge-owers guilty of "getting drunk and plowing into an oncoming car" is tiny compared to the millions who get it for no insurance, no DL, etc.. That's just thoughtless demagoguery.
@ Trigger Mortis, that's the figure Rebekah Hibbs from DPS gave to the Texas Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee this spring, not the most recent hearing but the one before it. The video is online. Probably includes repeaters.
Thank you.
Post a Comment