Smoke a Joint, Lose Your License
...by Mark Drake
Back in 1990, as Pete Wilson was preparing to leave his gig as U.S. Senator in order to run for Governor of California, he supported the "Solomon-Lautenberg Amendment" to a federal highway funding bill. This law provides that each state, in order to keep its full federal highway grant intact, must either enact legislation imposing suspension of the driving license of anyone convicted of a controlled substances offense regardless of whether a motor vehicle was in any way involved in the offense, or else its legislature and governor must pass a resolution opting out of this federal mandate. This seemed a little strange at the time, since Wilson claims to have a principled objection to unfunded federal impositions into states' natural jurisdictions, but that's the way it went down.
In the years before the federal deadline for action on this arrived, the California legislature showed little enthusiasm for a so-called "Smoke a Joint, Lose Your License" (SJLL) law. In 1992 they passed a compromise bill that would have opted out of the federal restriction, while imposing license suspensions at the state level for drug convictions which actually were vehicle related. That was not mean-spirited enough for now-Governor Wilson, though, who vetoed it. The following year, as the federal deadline loomed nearer, certain legislators from both parties sheepishly offered SJLL bills, figuring that since Wilson would apparently not back down and sign an opt-out resolution even it it were passed, they'd follow their standard political practice: always roll over when money is at stake. But the legislature as a whole rejected cowardice as the preferred option and let the subject drop for that session.
In 1994, the deadline was upon them and, expecting another Wilson stonewall of an opt-out resolution, enough Democrats knuckled under to pass SJLL legislation with a one-year sunset provision. The rationalization was that after Kathleen Brown was elected Governor in November, the intended resolution could be passed the next year, so this betrayal of principle would grind up only one year's crop of unfortunates. At the time, CalNORML's Dale Gieringer observed, "It's a shame that the worst and meanest law-and-order demagogues like Gov. Wilson stand tough for what they want, while liberals are willing to sell out their principles."
So that was signed into law in 1994 and duly expired again in December 1995. The federal law required that something be back on the books by October 1, 1996, and since Gov. Kathy hadn't materialized, our ever-morally-accommodating legislature passed at the last moment, another SJLL Sunset Special -- this one for six months (to expire March 1, 1997).
Come February of this year, the Feds caught wind of the scam and said California would have to see to it that provisions of Federal law were met continuously or we'd be out about 90 million bucks. Under the California Constitution, for a newly-passed law to take effect before the end of the year, it must have been passed as an emergency measure, requiring a 2/3 majority of each house. Both an opt-out resolution (SB 131, Kopp) and a replay of SJLL 'til 1999 (AB 74, Bowler) were offered up, but neither one mustered a 2/3 majority during February. So last year's SJLL law died on March first, and convictions recorded since then have not been subject to its provisions.
So what's next? That's the $92 million question. There was talk at the beginning of the month that if the state could act by the end of March, everyone would be happy to pretend that it had happened on time, but because of the Constitutional provision, that would still have required the 2/3 vote for either the extension or the resolution. Since that time, SB 131 (not to be referred to as the "Kopp-out resolution") has passed the Senate 23 - 14, and is awaiting action by the Assembly Transportation and Appropriations Committees. AB 74 (which may be considered the "Bowler Roller-Over Bill), having already passed in the Assembly, is scheduled for hearing by the Senate Criminal Procedures Committee on (appropriately enough) April first. Nerves are raw on this issue; between on the one hand zealots who lose their perspective when they sense an opportunity to cause grief and on the other hand the more sober legislators who are getting very tired of having Wilson jack them around with his grandstanding, it seemed unlikely that either measure could clear both houses with enough votes to take effect in time to even look as though California were complying with the Federal mandate this year.
But CLMP's mole reports that the Senate's top man is cutting a back-room deal with Gov. Wilson, by which both bills will be passed, on the agreement that Wilson will sign both in such a way that Bowler's AB 74 will go into effect immediately, persecuting its batch of victims until its sunset in 1999 -- after which Kopp's SB 131 will remain in effect, getting the Feds off our case for eternity.
This is supposed to be some kind of victory for the side of the angels in that AB 74 is amended to provide that the arresting officer in these cases will have to remember to inform his arrestee of the suspension provision of the law; and also, the courts will be empowered to consider a defendant's need to drive to work in assessing whether "compelling circumstances" warrant waiving the suspension.
For perspective, note that more than 30 states have now opted out. Politics has been called "the art of the possible," but stuff like the history of this law sure clarifies why it has been called a lot of other things, too.
|
|
