Senate Bill 881, sponsored by Sen. Bob Hertzberg, has cleared the Senate already and is working its way through the Assembly. But the momentum has been building a while. 

Civil liberties groups, like the ACLU of Northern California, have been pressuring courts to back off, arguing that people are being punished “for being poor.” Proponents say the practice traps individuals in the cycle of poverty — they don’t have the money to pay exorbitant fines, and so their licenses get suspended, and so they can’t get to work, and so they have even less money, and so on.

Civil liberties groups targeted Solano County Superior Court in April. Contra Costa County Superior Court announced a moratorium on the practice in May.

Citing DMV data in a statement, Hertzberg noted that 612,000 Californians have a suspended driver’s license due to failure to appear or failure to pay on traffic tickets.

“The truth of the matter is we have created the modern equivalent of debtors’ prison by taking away people’s driver’s licenses or throwing them in jail simply because they are too poor to pay a fine,” the Van Nuys Democrat said. “We must restore common sense to our justice system, treat the poor with decency and fairness and give working Californians a chance to make amends without jeopardizing their jobs or their families.”

In many instances, drivers receive an initial fine for some violation, with lots of additional fees tacked on. What was a $100 fine could be several hundred dollars and only swelling from there, sometimes escalating to thousands as payment is not made.

By the end of 2015, more than 1.9 million Californians, many of who whom are unemployed, disabled or homeless, had suspended licenses for failure to appear or failure to pay on citations, according to data provided by civil liberties groups.

Data shows a strong correlation between high poverty rates and high suspension rates in the Bay Area. 

Gov. Jerry Brown, who would need to sign the bill if it were to pass the Legislature, previously supported a related measure creating a one-time, traffic amnesty program.

In March, the ACLU of Northern California and other groups urged the California Judicial Council — the policy-making board of the California court system — for action, arguing that suspending licenses for unpaid fines disproportionately affects lower-income drivers.

The ACLU and others have been targeting individual courts as well in Bay Area counties. Contra Costa County Superior Court responded last week saying the Failure to Pay policy was under review.

“The court will suspend all FTP referrals until further notice,” Steven K. Austin, presiding judge of the Superior Court, wrote last week to the ACLU of Northern California and Bay Area Legal Aid. Austin added the moratorium had already begun.

In many instances, drivers receive an initial fine for some violation, with lots of additional fees tacked on. What was a $100 fine could be several hundred dollars and only swelling from there, sometimes escalating to thousands as payment is not made.

This often leads to a suspension, which limits the driver’s ability to get to work and perpetuates the problem, the coalition of civil liberties groups argued. And many of these citations are for minor infractions like not wearing a seat belt or not signaling on a turn.

By the end of 2015, more than 1.9 million Californians, many of who whom are unemployed, disabled or homeless, had suspended licenses for failure to appear or failure to pay on citations, according to data provided by civil liberties groups.

Data shows a strong correlation between high poverty rates and high suspension rates in the bay area. 

“What we’re looking for is a system that doesn’t punish people for being poor,” Micaela Davis, staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, previously told CalWatchdog. “What we see is that the fines and fees are so exorbitant on simple traffic citations that people simply can’t afford to pay.”

Detractors may argue that it’s the driver’s actions that incurred the fine in the first place, but Davis dismissed that notion, saying there are more effective ways of handling the issue.

“We can hold people accountable without also ruining their lives,” Davis said.

By the end of 2015, more than 1.9 million Californians, many of who whom are unemployed, disabled or homeless, had suspended licenses for failure to appear or failure to pay on citations, according to data provided by the coalition of groups, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California.

During that time period, there were nearly 33,000 suspended licenses in Solano County for a combination of failure to pay and failure to appear in court, which is about 7.75% of the county’s total population. And more than 11,000 of those suspensions were solely for failure to pay, the coalition wrote in a letter on Tuesday to the Hon. Robert C. Fracchia, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Solano County.

Snowball effect

In many instances, drivers receive an initial fine for some violation, with lots of additional fees tacked on. What was a $100 fine could be several hundred dollars and only swelling from there, sometimes escalating to thousands as payment is not made. This often leads to a suspension, which limits the driver’s ability to get to work and perpetuates the problem, the coalition argued.

“These non-safety related suspensions make it harder for people to get and keep jobs, harm credit ratings, increase county financial burdens in support of health and welfare and make it less likely that the court fines and fees will ever get paid,” the coalition wrote. “For low-income and indigent drivers, fines and fees create an insurmountable obstacle to the reinstatement of a driver’s license.”

Correlation to poverty 

Data shows a strong correlation between high poverty rates and high suspension rates in the bay area.

The Vehicle Code permits suspension for failure to pay only if the driver does so “willfully,” which the group argued shouldn’t include “indigence or financial difficulties.” The group continued that drivers should be afforded due process protections, meaning drivers should be “heard on the element of ‘willfulness’ and their ability to pay.”

Demands

The coalition is asking that Solano County Superior Court cease the practice of suspending licenses for unpaid fines.

But assuming the court doesn’t immediately comply, the coalition demands the court give the offending drivers notification of the total amount of fines and fees due, of his or her right to a judicial determination of ability to pay, of any payment options available (including an installment plan) and of the possibility that the driver’s license may be suspended.

Other efforts

Last month, the group sent a similar letter to the San Mateo County Superior Court.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and the Western Center on Law and Poverty are working with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California in these efforts.

A 2013 provision in the state budget offered major relief of fines due before Jan. 2013 but not for those after. So the ACLU of Northern California and others are calling to cease the suspensions entirely, or at least until certain safeguards are established.

What happens is that drivers receive an initial fine with lots of additional fees tacked on. What could be a $100 fine is now several hundred dollars and it only swells from there, sometimes even into the thousands, according to ACLU of Northern California staff.

The ACLU of Northern California and other groups have been studying the effect this has on low-income drivers in Bay Area counties. They note the problem is only worsened if fees aren’t paid on time, because then the license is suspended, jeopardizing the driver’s ability to get to work.

And many of these citations are for minor infractions like not wearing a seat belt or not signaling on a turn.

“What we’re looking for is a system that doesn’t punish people for being poor,” said Micaela Davis, staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, told CalWatchdog. “What we see is that the fines and fees are so exorbitant on simple traffic citations that people simply can’t afford to pay.”

Detractors may argue that it’s the driver’s actions that incurred the fine in the first place, but Davis dismissed that notion, saying there are more effective ways of handling the issue.

“We can hold people accountable without also ruining their lives,” Davis said.

On Monday, the ACLU of Northern California, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and the Western Center on Law and Poverty sent a demand letter to the San Mateo County Superior Court arguing that it change its policy. The coalition argued that judges have an option to suspend, not a mandate.

The coalition, along with Bay Area Legal Aid, also on Monday sent a letter to the the California Judicial Council, which is the policy-making board of the California court system, urging it to instruct the courts to stop.

The notion is both sickening and unconstitutional, but it’s also part of California’s political process dating back to 1911. The Golden State is one of 24 states that use the initiative process.

The issue arises as several other groups in the past month have submitted paperwork to the state Attorney General’s office to get the ball rolling on a wide range of ballot measures. After the paperwork is signed, supporters must collect 365,000 signatures to put their issue before voters.

There are currently 33 measures filed with the AG for the 2016 ballot.

The state’s largest service employees union, the SEIU, submitted a request to the state AG’s office in late April for a measure that would boost the minimum wage statewide to $15 an hour by the year 2021.

Another group seeks to curtail the state’s often-generous alimony law.

Then there’s the aforementioned “Sodomite Suppression Act.”

The latter effort has put the state’s system of proposition-as-change in the national spotlight. State Attorney General Kamala Harris is seeking more time to figure out how to refuse the measure without violating the rights of the gay-killing advocate, who lists his name as Matthew McLaughlin.

Most scholars say Harris can’t halt it; the law allows even something as unconstitutional as murder to be put to a vote.

Every election year, “a lot of people will come up with an initiative idea and throw it into the system, and you have a lot of crackpots,” said Kenneth Miller, associate professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, who developed the Miller-Rose Institute Initiative Database of all statewide initiatives approved by voters through 2014.

“Most of the things that succeed are done by interest groups, trade association, labor unions, business groups,” Miller said.  “Usually not individuals at large.”

Among states using the ballot to enact statewide policy change, California voters are second only to Oregon in the number of measures approved, 121.

California voters have passed around 35 percent of measures since 1911, when the state approved the initiative process.

Many times these initiatives stem from a group or individuals who are sure that the state Assembly will never pass legislation to address their issue or grievance. Unless otherwise worded, propositions can only be undone by another voter-approved initiative or a legal challenge.

“Most states that use this approach to lawmaking were the western states, which at the time were a lot more politically fluid,” Miller said. “They were just starting to become states and didn’t have entrenched systems.”

Challenges to initiatives

A passed initiative doesn’t mean unchallenged, and California has by far the most challenges to voter decided propositions, with 78 percent being taken on post-passage, according to an analysis of data by CalWatchdog.com.

Since the ‘70s, around half of those challenges have been at least partially successful.

By far the most challenges have come to “Jessica’s Law,” approved with 71 percent of the 2006 vote. The law prohibited all sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks, with the goal of keeping them away from children. Nine legal objections have been made. It has so far survived, but one case led to a state Supreme Court ruling in March that it went too far and made it unconstitutionally difficult for convicts to find a place to live.

Its legacy continues to be cited; this session, eight bills cite the proposition in supporting various amendments to the law it created.

The second most frequently challenged proposition, from 1920, allowed non-citizens the right to own property. It was approved by 75 percent of voters. Of the five challenges, three failed, one succeeded in part and the other got rid of the measure’s effect altogether.

The most recent legal challenge to a proposition came regarding 2012’s Prop. 35, which passed with 81 percent of the vote, the highest margin ever for a state proposal. It provided for stringent penalties for human traffickers, though a camp in opposition contended that it peripherally targeted sex workers.

A federal court halted implementation of the measure, and last month the court prolonged the stay until September.

Legal foes, including the ACLU of Northern California, say they will seek a permanent injunction against the voter-approved law if legislation addressing the measure isn’t approved by September.

Prop. 213 in 1996 was approved by 77 percent of the voters and restricted lawsuits by uninsured motorists and drunk drivers. That measure was challenged twice in state court and upheld.

“Crackpots” not going anywhere

The “crackpots” pushing homicidal notions like sodomite suppression will probably be around for some time. Polls indicate California residents feel they are better at lawmaking than their elected officials.

Miller said that doesn’t seem to impede legislative efforts to alter or clarify the process.

Assembly Bill 535, introduced in February, seeks to create more specific language for initiatives. Assembly Bill 1457 would make a minor housekeeping change to a legal provision governing people collecting signatures for an initiative petition.

“You can imagine that state lawmakers would like to maintain a monopoly on lawmaking and not open it up to outsiders,” Miller said.

Added John Matsusaka, executive director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute and the University of Southern California: “Why some states allow the initiative and others do not, that is something of a mystery. Legislators usually dislike the initiative, so the puzzle is how so many states managed to adopt the process in the first place, given that it usually took a first action by the legislature.”

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com