Gov. Martin O'Malley's proposal to raise revenue by imposing surcharges on traffic fines is likely to go nowhere — just as it did when former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. floated a similar idea.
As reported in this newspaper by my colleague Annie Linskey, O'Malley's proposal could add $1,500 to the cost of a drunken driving conviction or to other violations that add up to 6 points.
As much as the added penalties would be a plus for highway safety, history shows the idea will run into implacable opposition from the public and the General Assembly. Chances are the plan will be buried as deep as it was when Ehrlich proposed it in 2004 as part of a transportation revenue package.
After a brief kerfuffle and some partisan outrage from folks with short memories, it's likely O'Malley's proposal will drop off the political radar quickly. It's a shame the proposal won't hang around longer, because it deserves some discussion.
Raising revenue by cracking down on traffic violators is neither a Republican nor a Democratic idea. It's what you might call a well-meant idea with potentially fatal flaws — practical as well as political.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph F. Vallario Jr. has a good point when he says the proposal isn't good public policy. He comes at this from a defense attorney's point of view — as he does with almost everything — but his argument that the extra penalty is imposed without an additional hearing is well-taken, as is his suggestion that it would make more sense to just increase the fines.
One problem with the O'Malley proposal is that the surcharges for bad drivers are based on the accumulation of points. This is a system that is broken already because many of Maryland's District Court judges seem to be on a mission to undermine it.
Go into traffic court and you'll see judges doing all they can to spare points from even egregious violators. They'll give probation before judgment to repeat offenders and extreme violators with no regard for the point system's purpose — to help identify who is a high-risk driver and who is not. Never mind that by concealing the record of unsafe motorists, insurance rates are kept artificially high for good drivers.
If another layer of penalties is added, the judiciary is likely to do further contortions to keep people from reaching the point levels where they have to pay up.
It also complicates matters whenever the government comes to rely upon surcharges above the actual fines to provide revenue. It creates a perception of a conflict of interest that undermines support for sensible traffic law enforcement. Traffic fines should be set to punish violations, not produce revenue.
Sure, it doesn't make sense to take the money from fines and burn it on the courthouse lawn. But it's better for the image of justice that the money be directed to purposes around which there's a broad political consensus. Ehrlich came closer to the mark than O'Malley did when he at least sought to direct the fines to the Transportation Trust Fund.
The argument against O'Malley's proposal that doesn't hold water is the tearful plea that drivers can't afford to pay more.
My reply: Tough. If you can't pay the fine, don't commit the crime. There's no way to resolve the fact that monetary fines impose a greater burden on the poor than on the filthy rich. As a result, fines give people with low incomes more incentive to drive safely than they do with wealthy folks. So? You could argue that the system is unfair to the rich — who are less likely to be deterred from foolish behavior. But life is unfair.
What's good about O'Malley's proposal is that it targets people who richly deserve to be soaked — drunken drivers and motorists who accumulate 6 points or more on their driving records. These are dangerous drivers — and the proposed surcharges don't begin to make up for the costs they impose on society.
But with drunken drivers, it would be more effective to require a taste of jail — even if just one weekend — for every offender. Instead of a surcharge, leave them some money to install ignition interlock devices.
It's much the same with serial speeders and other moving violators. With all the breaks the system gives, it's almost impossible to accumulate 6 points in this state without being a willfully terrible driver.
But the way to deal with these folks is to toughen the underlying penalties and to increase the degree to which they escalate with subsequent offenses. Even better would be to end probation before judgment for drunken drivers and repeat traffic offenders.
With more than 500 deaths on Maryland roads each year — most having to do with a violation of the traffic code — a tougher approach could save lives and make driving more pleasant for those who respect the law.
But coupling such a crackdown with a need to raise revenue sends a mixed message. Taxpayers might legitimately ask whether the extra $5 million to $10 million it would raise for the general fund is worth it.
After all, wouldn't it be better to gradually shift penalty revenue away from the general fund to an incentive system for good drivers? Take the money from fines and use it to finance credits for ticket-free drivers to receive discounts on their registration fees. That way, the harder the state hammers violators, the better it is for safe drivers.
Just think. You open up your $128 registration notice from the Motor Vehicle Administration and it includes a voucher for $20-$30 to offset the cost because you've been a good driver. Meanwhile, those with lousy records pay the full cost.
If that doesn't promote a culture of safety and support for law enforcement on Maryland roads, nothing will.