Driver’s license suspensions are bad for communities, the economy, and public safety.
By Emily Dindial
On any given day across the country, millions of Americans have had their drivers’ license suspended — not because of unsafe driving or other safety concerns but because of a government imposed debt they can’t afford to pay.
It doesn’t have to be this way. State and local governments can and must end taxation by citation — and right now Congress has a chance to help them do it.
The Driving for Opportunity Act, introduced by Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), is bipartisan legislation that provides grants to states that do not suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a driver’s license of a person or registration of a motor vehicle for failure to pay a civil or criminal fine or fee.
By helping states cover the costs of reinstating driver’s licenses previously suspended for unpaid fines and fees, the Driving for Opportunity Act would encourage states to do the right thing, and it would give millions of Americans the opportunity to have their driving privileges restored. Right now, the bill is awaiting action by the Senate Judiciary Committee — and there’s no time to waste.
Taxation by citation is a pernicious system, and it works like this: State and local governments create frivolous regulations as predatory money-making schemes to fund government services. For instance, nuisance regulations like loitering, beautification regulations like lawn maintenance requirements, traffic regulations like bans on tinted windows, or quality of life regulations like bans on sleeping in public. The sheer number of regulations, which have no bearing on public safety, make it very likely that someone will run afoul of one of the many finable offenses at some point in time — especially if they live in Black and Brown communities that are already subjected to over-policing.
A person in violation of any one of these unnecessary codes is then slapped with a fine and a bevy of administrative fees, which can then escalate into hundreds or even thousands of dollars. When that person can’t afford to pay their debt, the government suspends their driver’s license. This exposes them to even harsher penalties, including arrest and incarceration, when they have no choice but to drive on a suspended license.
A recent ACLU report documents the pervasive practice of using driver’s license suspension as a consequence for unpaid fines and fees. These burdens are borne disproportionately by Black and Brown communities, fueling a vicious cycle of poverty and criminalization.
The fact is that in most of America, driving isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity. The majority of people living in the U.S. don’t have access to public transportation and rely on driving to get to work, school, religious services, court obligations, and medical appointments. People whose licenses have been suspended are often left with no choice but to drive and risk criminal consequences, making it even more difficult for them to pay off their debt.
State and local governments should not be funding their operations through law enforcement, period. But they do, and it’s nonsensical and counterproductive.
First, debt-based license suspension is not an effective collection tool. Taking away people’s ability to get to work doesn’t just make it harder for them to pay off their initial debt, it also has ripple effects throughout the economy — reducing family incomes and destabilizing communities.
Instead of protecting public safety, debt-based license suspensions undermine it by diverting resources away from important community services and priorities. In 2019, Minneapolis City Attorney Mary Ellen Heng told the Minnesota legislature that her prosecutors spend about 30 percent of their time enforcing these suspensions that have no bearing on public safety.
Worst of all, using courts and law enforcement officers as debt-collectors enables over-criminalization and exacerbates racist policing practices. In Texas, 95 percent of arrest warrants issued in 2016 were for unpaid fines and fees, and more than 640,000 people were jailed as a result.
In Durham County, North Carolina, 80 percent of those with suspended licenses were people of color, mostly Black Americans, and the average time they had lived without a license was 11 years. In New York City — where driving on a suspended license was the fourth-most charged crime in 2018 — 76 percent of drivers are white, yet 80 percent of people arrested for driving on a suspended license in 2018 were Black or Latinx, according to the Fines and Fees Justice Center.
For Black and Brown communities, the practice of debt-based license suspension can be deadly. When Daunte Wright was brutally killed by police in Minnesota, it was during a traffic stop that stemmed from unpaid fines and fees.
Fortunately, more and more states are recognizing the harms of this costly and counterproductive practice. Ten states have already ended debt-based license suspensions, and Congress can encourage more to do so by passing the Driving for Opportunity Act.
Now, this legislation has bipartisan support in Congress and from groups across the political spectrum, including Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, the ACLU, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Curbing debt-based license suspensions is a common sense opportunity for Congress to advance racial justice and our economic recovery. They shouldn’t wait to seize it.
Emily Dindial is Advocacy and Policy Counsel with the ACLU
People who have behaved in a financially irresponsible manner and have racked up massive debts through fines imposed by the courts should not be rewarded. Rewarding irresponsible behaviour will only lead to more irresponsible behaviour. Once their debts are cleared, low class individuals will simply rack up more fines/ tickets and expect them to be cleared in the future.
Fines should absolutely never be cleared. Doing so is a road to more chaos and eventually economic ruin. People must take responsibility for their own actions. No exceptions!
Or, inactions…
Including fines owed to IRS for failure to make payments, or submitting ‘doctored’ tax returns… from the janitor to the billionaire (particularly those who ‘would be President), and of course, corporations… no exceptions!
Guess we should ban all those ‘tax resolution’ firms on TV… no “negotiations” by them or ‘tax attorneys’…
Retribution = justice, right?
I’m trying to think of a way to describe this. A lie, perhaps? Especially for those living in inner-cities?
Another lie?
Another lie?
Another lie?
Uh, huh. You might get hit by lightning, as well. A lot more likely that they will be killed by someone who has had their license suspended (and then restored under this proposal), due to their driving habits.
Finally – not a lie. It is a privilege, not a right.
If you don’t drive like a selfish, aggressive fool who doesn’t care about others’ safety, you probably won’t be fined in the first place.
Ron
Have you conducted an extensive study of transit access in the U.S.? Perhaps the statement that a majority don’t have access to public transit is hyperbole because most metropolitan areas have at least rudimentary, if dysfunctional, transit systems. However, a better statement is that the majority of Americans are served by transit systems that are inadequate to serve their transportation needs given that most live in suburbs and exurbs that are far from their workplaces and retail businesses.
Especially since so many low income service workers cannot afford to live near their workplaces located in high rent business districts, commuting by inadequate transit can take several hours a day roundtrip. That’s compared to the average automobile commute time of 55 minutes roundtrip. (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/one-way-travel-time-to-work-rises.html) When many of these workers must hold two or more jobs to earn enough to cover housing costs, the added commute time due to a loss of a license means that they are much less likely to be able to fit in that second job. That means they must choose between being able to make ends meet or break the law.
7 million have lost their license to the inability to pay fines or fees. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/more-than-7-million-people-may-have-lost-drivers-licenses-because-of-traffic-debt/2018/05/19/97678c08-5785-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html) What does lack of financial resources have to do with traffic safety? Are you proposing to reimpose poll taxes as an income test for voting since that also involves judgement? Is wealth an important test for you for an ability to participate in society?
So none of the statements in the article are a “lie” (which is a pretty strong accusation of unethical behavior–and you’re already skating on thin ice there.)
While driving is a privilege, it also cannot be withheld in a clearly discriminatory way that has no bearing on how driving affects others.
Chris
Where did you come up with that hogwash? Do you think that Tiger Woods cares a wit about the traffic fine that he’ll get for his 90 mph crash in LA? Please explain how income level has anything to do with traffic safety when the statistics clearly show the most dangerous drivers are young men under thirty (seemingly all in small modified foreign coupes or overly large pickups.) Let’s use real data to keep the most dangerous off the roads if that’s what you want.
[edited]
In any case, many low-income people live in inner cities, where public transportation is excellent.
It is not up to me to support the author’s unsupported (and illogical) claims, especially when advocating for a policy that will endanger others.
Lie. At least an untruth.
In any case, not all low-income folk live in “inner cities”… far from… they live in rural areas, or rent in suburbia, or rent in cities, but not “inner cities”… is the ‘Canal area’ in San Rafael “inner city”?
What is your real “point”? Income, race, “them”?
Fact is, the debt can suspend licenses to those who need to drive to the low-income jobs they have… so they won’t have even lower income…
I am sympathetic to the gist of the article… but I also see, resolution of debts, perhaps on a sliding scale, as right and just… not as a ‘gift’, but as a “way out”… something about blood out of a turnip…
[Moderator: you and Ron need to cease replying to each other]
In any case, many low-income people live in inner cities, where public transportation is excellent.
Actually, it’s a fact.
By the way, the use of the word “lie” is frowned-upon here, according to the moderator.
Did I say “all”? Or, are you just “lying”? Do you consider Oakland and Hunter’s Point to be “out-in-the-sticks”? Vast areas of Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago?
My point is exactly as stated.
The purpose of the law is to keep dangerous drivers off the road. That’s what I’d call a priority.
A sliding scale might make sense, and is something I had thought of as well. But I have no “sympathy” whatsoever for those who think the law should not apply to those causing danger to others. I do have sympathy for those that they injure or kill (and their families), however. Who are probably disproportionately poor.
One has to examine the reason that laws are enacted in the first place.
[Moderator: you and Bill need to cease replying to each other.]
Ron
First, you’re making an unsupported assumption that when licenses are suspended for failure to pay fines and fees, it’s because of moving violations. Based on the Washington Post article I posted, it appears that the most common cause is unpaid parking tickets, towing charges and registration fees. And you still haven’t answered why the ability to drive needs to be income tested? Why are the wealthy who can buy their way out of these tickets so privileged to continue to drive while the poor are not?
Second, 34 million people in poverty in the U.S. Most of them do NOT live in inner cities, (mathematically not possible) and you’re making a gross assumption that the transit systems are adequate in most of the metropolitan areas in the nation. If only a small portion of these folks (and those probably don’t drive much anyway), why did you even bring this up? Why did you make the apparently racist assumption that its the poor in the “inner cities” who are the most likely to be impacted by this problem? It’s the poor in the suburbs and exurbs that are impacted the most. Put some research behind your incorrect gross generalizations.
Could be, but I haven’t seen you quote any statistics.
Also, are folks who generate unpaid parking tickets and registration fees more likely to be engaged in other violations or accidents?
Do they get their cars smogged and insured?
What are the statistics regarding those questions?
Where did I say that?
The truly wealthy don’t even necessarily need to (personally) drive. You brought up the example of Tiger Woods as someone who can afford a ticket, but perhaps he can’t “afford” what happened to him personally, as a result of his driving.
Kobe Bryant was (unfortunately) an example of someone who was wealthy enough to avoid driving altogether (personally, or by someone else), during his final trip. (I recall reading or hearing somewhere that he chose flying for that trip to avoid traffic that impacts us “commoners” – though that word was not used.)
What makes you think that the capitalistic system is “fair”, in the first place?
Let’s see some actual statistics, regarding the folks who “need” to drive with suspended licenses, because they “need to get to work” and “don’t live” in an area supported by public transportation. And then, let’s see how many had licenses suspended for something other than “parking tickets”.
A disproportionate number of poor live in inner cities, which are well-served by public transportation. Are you suggesting that it’s racist to realize that?
And if you’re claiming that this predominantly impacts “non-white” people living in areas which aren’t served by public transportation, let’s see some statistics to back that up. Including the reason that they had their licenses suspended.
I’d suggest the same for you.
Put forth some statistics, regarding those who live away from cities (and yet are receiving parking tickets, which are causing their driver’s licenses to be suspended – according to you).
First, you made the assertion linking suspended licenses to safety and unpaid fines. The burden of statistical empirical evidence is on you. I’m challenging your assertion. Until you present your evidence, I don’t need to present anything because what you’ve said has no validity until its backed up. Adding peripheral issues is just a distraction from your failure to provide supporting evidence. Stay on topic.
You said suspending licenses for unpaid fines is justified as a safety measure. However, both the article here and in the Washington Post said that unpaid fines arise from lack of income. Since Tiger Woods can pay his fine and go back to driving, your statement leads to the conclusion that you are proposing an income test for retaining a drivers license. Again, [edited] you don’t say directly what you intend; instead you hide in other language. That’s always been the story. You’re being called out for your code language.
Again you asserted that the poor don’t need to drive because they live in inner cities that are well served with transit. I showed that your assertion is not mathematically possible because there aren’t 34 million residents of well served inner cities. If they aren’t living there, they must be living in the suburbs and exurbs as a mathematical truth. Again the burden of empirical proof is on you to support your assertion. I don’t need to provide a counter narrative until you’ve made your statistical case. Until then, your claim is invalid because you haven’t provided the evidence.
I made no such assumptions.
Here is what I said, immediately above your comment regarding that:
Again, see my comment above.
What assertion?
You don’t need to present anything either way, nor did I ask you to. The types of questions I listed relate to the assertions of the article, not what you or I said.
Thanks for the advice, though I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I asked what the relationship is (e.g., correlation) between those who have (for example) unpaid fines, unregistered and/or uninsured vehicles, and collision rates.
Probably a good reason to avoid fines, and to ensure that you have the means to support a decision to own a car.
Tiger Woods was not cited or fined, but he suffered a serious injury.
That would be a personal attack, and reflect on you, not me. But good to know that you consider me a “racist”. I’ve learned to not even react to such statements on here, anymore.
I did not assign a number to those who live in areas well-served by public transit. Nor have I assigned any numbers regarding the various reasons that driver’s licenses are suspended.
My comment was in regard to inner-cities. Inner-cities are not the only areas served by mass transit.
Again, what assertion?
You don’t need to in the first place.
What claim?
I know you guys like doing this point – counterpoint. But on my browser, it’s impossible to read. Paragraphs work a lot better for me.
Ah, using the old code language snipe now, what’s next, dog whistle?
This is all so weak.
Mr Richard
If you’re referring to the below
I know a lot of Rich low class individuals being low class has nothing to do with how much money you make or how educated you may be .?
Once their debts are cleared, low class individuals will simply rack up more fines/ tickets and expect them to be cleared in the future.
Just one person’s opinion.
So, you equate “low income” to “low class”… interesting nuances there, as stated… or did you mean “castes”?
Are you Brahmin, Untouchable, or somewhere in between? Your caste designation cannot change, but your income status can… either way…
I’ll cut you slack… you meant lower income ‘classes’, and not “low class”, do not equate the two, and do not support a “caste” system… but I have my doubts… am thinking you, see yourself as Brahmin…
Could speak to recent examples of the difference between low income, and “low class”, at the highest levels, but that would be “drift”… so I won’t.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. That statement is a factual statement about recidivism rates that can be checked factually. That’s a rather bigoted statement until you can provide FACTS to back it up. You have not presented any empirical evidence for your statement which isn’t “opinion.”
Richard, where did you come up with this because Ron never said or inferred anything close to this:
Speaking of hogwash…
As I said, Ron’s statement clearly implies that a lack of financial resources is a cause for taking away a drivers license. If he’s using a financial test for getting a driver’s license, it’s not much of a leap to a poll tax.
It’s difficult to respond to comments that weren’t even made in the first place, let alone jump to further conclusions based upon that.
It’s essentially the same as arguing against comments that you have created, yourself.
There’s some people walking around on the streets, suffering from the same delusion.
Unfortunately Ron, as usual you’re unable to see the true implications that arise from the logic of your statements.
Again, when you refer to statements that were literally not made in the first place, it’s difficult to engage in debate.
Just as I wouldn’t attempt to engage in debate with someone suffering from schizophrenia or dementia.
At times, it’s also not worth engaging in debate with those whose views are so biased and loaded with preconceived assumptions regarding others that they’ve closed themselves off to any other view. It’s a form of intolerance and rigidity, which (ironically) they often view others as subscribing to. Those folks seem to have no ability to self-reflect.
That’s an amazing statement from the person who is the epitome of this description. Repeatedly when presented with empirical evidence countering your position, you refuse to admit that you’re wrong. Even when presented with evidence of your mathematical error in calculating on campus vs off campus housing costs, you could not bring yourself to say that you were wrong. When told 2+2 does not equal 5, you can’t even say you’re wrong. I don’t present my evidence here to convince you–I present to others who are more open empirical evidence to counter your erroneous statements.
As for your implied statements, as I said above, you often use coded language that I’m calling out. Segregationists in the South did the same thing.
Do you ever actually listen to what you’re saying? Seriously, where is this coming from?
About what? Oh, wait – you do have an example from a few weeks ago:
I was wrong. (Actually, it was not a calculation error, I was using the wrong source in the first place. “Not that there’s anything wrong” with calculation errors, to paraphrase Seinfeld.) The monthly rental costs are quite similar, but the campus housing did not require a full-year commitment. So, it’s actually a better deal for many. Either way, get ready to pay some significant bucks to live in ANY new student housing. Apparently, quite a few can.
In case you need a supply/demand “refresher”, rentals don’t get rented, if they’re priced higher than what the market will bear. Same principle with sales.
How kind of you. Have they expressed any interest? What evidence, by the way? And what are we even talking about?
Well, I don’t have the key to that code, myself.
Why would Southern segregationists (from the “old days”, I assume) even need a “code”? Wasn’t someone like George Wallace pretty much out in the open?
Never mind – I see that you got it from me (to you). My “error”.
Well, right back at you again. And I have “empirical evidence” to support that redirection. It’s all in coded language, anyway.
My “white privilege” is probably keeping me from seeing it.
And I’m “too fragile” to have it pointed out – even by another white person (which is almost always the case).
In any case, the code is the keystone to the language of systemic racism.
See? I’m starting to learn. Empirically, no less.
Oh boy, how do you try to reason with logic like that?
Richard, he’s got you to do that for him.
Hi folks,
If you are about to use the word “lie” in a comment, reconsider. There is a high likelihood the comment will get removed.
Is “untruth”, or not “supported by cites”, OK?
So, by your metric, calling someone out for saying that Trump won in 2020, “by a landslide” as a ‘lie’ unacceptable?
I make a distinction between calling out a posit as a “lie”, and calling someone “a liar”… big diff, in my mind…
I suggest you respond to perceived misstatements of facts with actual facts.
Emily Dindial’s piece is actually a good one and correctly addresses a real problem. Ms. Dindial does not offer alternatives to fines or failure to pay fines for infractions. I am not interested in seeing the laws that are violated repealed, but I do accept that loading poor people with extra debts that they can’t pay off as counterproductive. Public transit in urban areas is not well planned for most people. It is not uncommon for people working in the East Bay who commute to areas west of downtown SF to pay out $400 to $500/month. Try doing so on low wage salaries. It makes sense that they drive vehicles that are very marginal, without licenses, insurance, etc. I’m not saying it is right, but it is a survival tactic. I do wish Ms. Dindial would offer some alternatives to fees and fines for those who really can’t pay. That is the only discussion that moves her idea along.
Yeah… that’s what I proposed… “sliding scale”, based on ability to pay, with a factor recognizing that if you don’t have affordable transportation, you don’t have income… my experience was very short/short commutes…
Very short was bicycle or Unitrans… but we live close to a Unitrans and Yolobus route(s)… 3-5 minute walk… we planned, and were lucky, that we could do either, or drive… not all have those choices… or luck…
An alternative is let each city decide whether it enforces license fees, and give grants (land or funding) to cities that demonstrate hospitality by net immigration.
Each city can decide its own laws (almost full autonomy), the balance is in giving grants to cities where people would move to.
This is democracy by rewarding popular choices instead of democracy by majority rule.
By the way, there are programs which allow folks who receive DUIs to obtain restricted licenses, so that they can “get to work” (and for no other reason). I vaguely recall hearing about something like this, so I looked it up.
I don’t know if that applies regarding other, less-serious infractions. But if not, perhaps it could. And if so, perhaps this entire nonsensical claim can be put to rest.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/dui/laws/license-suspension/restricted-license/#:~:text=California%20Drivers%20License%20Suspensions%20Blog%20Posts%3A&text=CHP%20get%20taken%3F-,To%20get%20a%20restricted%20license%20to%20drive%20to%20work%20after,%24125.00%20fee%20to%20the%20DMV.
But something tells me that this isn’t actually what’s behind the interest in this issue, for some. Rather than recognizing the awesome responsibility of operating a vehicle safely and responsibly (the TOP PRIORITY for anyone with a lick of sense), they want to turn it into a broader “social justice” issue.
Ron, as they usually do. It’s the automatic fallback when you have a discussion with them on just about any topic anymore. It gets so tiring.
We are not talking about DUIs. We are talking about people being punished because they cannot afford to pay fines and fees.
From the article: “cover the costs of reinstating driver’s licenses previously suspended for unpaid fines and fees”
It helps if you read comments, before responding:
But no – I don’t support driving around with expired registration, without insurance, without getting your car smogged, with no regard to parking regulations, and on a suspended license.
Is that controversial, to you?
Everyone is subject to these expenses as part of the privilege of driving.
It helps if you stick to the issues. Basically your position here is I don’t care if data suggests these laws do more harm than good, I am for poor people having their licenses taken away.
I believe you’re taking commenting lessons from Richard. Or, is it vice-versa?
I do care about the responsibility, impact and risk that everyone incurs, when they choose to drive. And I don’t want to be in the vicinity of anyone who downplays that. These types of responsibilities have no relationship to factors such as income, gender or skin color – none. They are universal, and apply to driving itself.
You’re sidestepping the data and attempting to at the same time soften your own opinion.
Ron, I was thinking the same thing. Your comment beat me to it. Maybe they teach this in some social justice class or something?
No one is sideswiping data here. RO has a ‘different worldview’ than you, DG. What is abhorrent about progressives is that they, such as yourself, are so sure their worldview is that correct worldview, that anyone who argues from another worldview is simply deemed ‘wrong’ and their speech worthy of deletion (see deleted comments – or, rather, don’t see them – they are deleted – many today – because progressives have ‘fear of other ideas’ – besides the correct ones of course)
We are actually measuring different things in the first place. My questions were in regard to the data that’s not being reported.
David’s data is related to disparate outcomes, as usual.
My questions had nothing to do with that, but which I believe are actually more important. (That’s where the difference in “worldview” comes into play.)
Again, not sure what to do about this in the short term. I don’t like the idea that we would just forgive fines for not licensing or registering a vehicle, not having a valid driver’s license, not fixing cars that have violations of the vehicle code, let alone moving violations. On the other hand, we’ve consciously developed an economy that is literally built around the automobile especially for low wage service jobs that can’t be performed from home. Sure, anyone can get anywhere in Davis on a bike or on foot, but the bulk of the problem is in larger cities and towns where sprawl makes that impossible. Think even Fairfield or the Elk Grove/Sacramento/Citrus Heights/Rancho Cordova complex that are not “inner cities”. Davis is not a good example for anything.
Dave – this piece won a pulitzer in Pro Publica – https://www.propublica.org/series/driven-into-debt – it shows the real problem here isn’t avoiding fees, it is the mounting debt that those simple fees started with. You could probably address the problem by avoiding the interest and tack ons and simply keep the base fee in place.
No question about tacking on extra fees and adding to the debt. Same thing with student loans: there are people who owe more after paying the minimum on student loans than the original loan. It hamstrings people forever and is an anchor drag on the economy for everyone. I get all that. I guess I’m more interested in alternatives to cash payment of fines to avoid this problem in the first place.
Ain’t that the truth.
There’s a storm looming on the horizon that will affect everyone and the Davis Vanguard has not mentioned it even once this is an injustice that effects all California’s?
https://www.newsweek.com/california-pork-ban-bacon-shortage-could-see-prices-jump-60-percent-1615291
Sir, your bacon and eggs breakfast will cost you $27.99. Now if we’re really worried about the poor this is something that needs to be remedied. Start stocking up on bacon.
That is probably going to impact the cheap, race-to-the-bottom pork. I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Either get used to paying a more reasonable price for that stuff or quit eating it. I love pork and bacon and we buy the stuff that is already compliant. I should also cut back on it, but it is sooooo gooood.
Try veggie bacon. There are several brands to choose from – some better than others.
There is a limit of 5 comments per person per day on each article. As of now
Keith O
Ron O
Bill M
have met or exceeded their daily limit and cannot continue to post on this thread.
Either get used to paying a more reasonable price for that stuff or quit eating it
Dave,
I have to disagree with you we have to make our bacon prices much much cheaper.
We need to work on ways to make square pigs that way they fit in trucks better and they’ll fit in the pens much easier. I know what also reduce transportation costs ? we need to work on ways to feed the world
Just one person’s opinion.