It’s back to the bad old days of being both a punching bag and a punchline for the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

In the final decades of the 20th century, the state DMV was scorned for its bureaucratic sluggishness and bored clerks. But the arrival of the internet as a tool to make taking care of some routine transactions much easier online and to schedule appointments for tests and renewals produced an era of relatively positive appraisals.

In 2006, San Jose Mercury-News reporter Gary Richards caught this moment in a front-page story:

“People coming in to renew licenses, solve registration problems, pay fees and deal with what was once a most painful experience.

“Not any more. This is the new Department of Motor Vehicles, where customer service is a top priority, waits are down to minutes, there are chairs, and even clean bathrooms. Frowns, scowls and worried looks of the past have been replaced by – get this – smiling customers.

“All the result of beefed-up staffing, internet service options and a new electronic queuing system at most branches.”

In 2008, Richards did a follow-up column in which he wrote about positive experiences that local readers had at DMV offices in San Mateo, Redwood City and Los Gatos.

But after the events of 2018, this brief era of goodwill toward the DMV seems like distant, almost implausible history. Wait times are nearly 50 percent longer at DMV offices than last summer.

Agency officials blame the increased workload created by the state’s obligations under the federal 2005 Real ID Act. By October 2020, Californians must have new federal ID cards before they can fly on commercial aircrafts. The DMV began issuing the IDs on Jan. 1.

But despite having years to prepare for the new obligation, DMV leaders seemed surprised by the extra workload.

Bitter public complaints have already led the Legislature to appropriate nearly $17 million so the agency can hire 230 new workers to reduce wait times. But based on public complaints, those hired so far haven’t seemed to improve wait times.

When legislative Democrats last week heeded the Brown administration’s request and balked at asking state Auditor Elaine Howle to review the DMV, the scandal – or at least criticism from state pundits – only intensified.

Last weekend, in its latest move to address critics, the DMV began keeping 60 offices around the state open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays.

DMV chief says she expects much faster service

The agency’s director, Jean Shiomoto, told the Sacramento Bee that her goal is for those with appointments to wait no more than 15 minutes and for those without appointments to wait no more than 45 minutes.

“You’ve got to put an ambitious goal out there to reach it,” she said. “That is what we are definitely working to achieve.”

But lawmakers don’t seem confident of any relief soon.

Sen. Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, announced that she planned to introduce legislation that would give 90-day extensions of renewal deadlines for those with licenses that expire this year.

Her rationale: “No Californian should spend an entire day off work waiting in line to take care of DMV business or wait for several weeks to make an appointment. The media stories and firsthand accounts from constituents about shockingly long wait times and other logistical challenges at DMV offices demands that the Legislature act quickly.”

Proposition 57 — the victorious November ballot measure sponsored by Gov. Jerry Brown — continues to spark controversy over its loose definition of “nonviolent” crimes.

The proposition won easy approval despite harsh criticism from district attorneys around the state. The measure writes into the state Constitution guarantees that those convicted of “nonviolent crimes” can be eligible for early parole if they behave well and take part in rehabilitation programs.

But the measure was crafted rapidly in what critics likened to the judicial version of “gut and amend,” transforming what was originally meant to be a ballot initiative reforming juvenile justice into an expansive measure with far-reaching reform goals. The revision was approved by the California Supreme Court despite a stinging dissent from Justice Ming W. Chin who said failure to subject the measure to normal thorough reviews set a poor precedent and made it more likely to be poorly drafted.

Chin’s point was underscored when it came to the public’s attention through the Brock Turner case in Stanford that under Proposition 57, the former college athlete’s sexually molesting an unconscious female student was considered a “nonviolent” crime — among many sex crimes considered “nonviolent” because of Prop. 57’s reliance on crime category labeling dating back to 1976.

Brown: Trust parole officials to protect public

The governor’s counter was that the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would never prematurely parole someone guilty of a violent sex crime. But many state lawmakers aren’t persuaded, especially given the corrections agency’s history of scandals and problems.

Sen. Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, wants protections against possible early release of sex criminals and other violent felons written into law. She told the Los Angeles Times she is pushing a bill with that goal in hopes of sparking a public debate on what crimes should be added to the list of those technically considered “violent” by the state, starting with violence against children and police officers.

“If you put yourself in the position of a victim in any one of those crimes, you will say, ‘That was violent because that affected me physically and emotionally,’” Bates told the Times.

Bates isn’t the only lawmaker seeking changes.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, R-Roseville, wants cruelty to animals, crimes targeting older people and the kidnapping of children with the intent of using them as prostitutes added to the list.

Assembly members Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, and Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, D-San Diego, want all types of rape involving people incapable of giving consent branded as violent crimes.

There is also likely to be interest in adding assault on a domestic partner to the list.

State budget says no early parole for sex offenders

Brown has dismissed criticism of Prop. 57 in his public comments. But the 2017-18 budget Brown released in January contains a de facto response to critics. It explicitly noted that sex offenders would not be considered for early parole.

That’s still not good enough for many district attorneys, who say parole decisions can be challenged in court because of Prop. 57’s language.

Unless Prop. 57 is revised before the 2018 gubernatorial campaign revs up, it is likely to be an issue in that race.