成人X站

Strengthening the state鈥檚 DUI laws is never an easy feat in Washington, and this legislative session was no exception.

RELATED: Crackdown on DUIs gets second life in Olympia
搁贰尝础罢贰顿:听As one DUI bill fails, another advances聽

There were a few bills at the start of the session to toughen state laws on impaired drivers. One from Democratic Rep. Roger Goodman was years in the making, and among other measured, lengthened the amount of time drunk drivers would have to use ignition interlock devices, while adding penalties for impaired drivers with minors in the car.

Republican Sen. Mike Padden鈥檚 bill 鈥� 鈥� would have made four DUIs in 15 years a felony (rather than 10 years), which comes with prison time in most cases. It died in committee, as did a similar bill from Democratic Sen. David Frockt.

However, later in the session, Padden鈥檚 15 year look-back — with significant bi-partisan support in both chambers — was added to Goodman鈥檚 larger bill, and was approved in the Senate.

Padden says the bill hit a wall when it was sent back to the House for approval.

“Despite commitments from the Democrat majority that they would take this up, they didn鈥檛. They refused to vote on it at the very end [of session],鈥� Padden said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very disappointing, mainly for the victims of DUIs.”

鈥淲e鈥檝e had some very high profile cases in the Seattle area of 13, 17, eight, or nine prior DUIs that have skated, because the DUIs weren鈥檛 inside the 10-year time frame,鈥� Padden added.

Goodman confirmed the bill was in jeopardy days before the end of the session, despite his support for extending the look-back period. The issue, Goodman said, was the projected $8-million dollar price tag that would come with locking up the relatively small number of repeat DUI offenders the change would impact over four years.

鈥淭he question there is whether we have the political will to pay for it,鈥� Goodman explained.

They didn鈥檛, and House budget writer, Democratic Rep. Timm Ormsby refused to include the money in the budget, and House leadership refused to vote on the bill if 15-year look-back was included. The Senate refused to drop the measure, and as a result, the entire DUI bill died.

“There was no funding because the bill didn鈥檛 pass,” said Rep. Ormsby in a written statement. “We universally do not fund policies that do not pass.”

“The look-back bill failed in the Senate and was amended onto a House bill. The policy never had a House hearing and did not receive concurrence,” he added.

What went wrong

Padden questions the issue of cost being the problem.

鈥淚t鈥檚 $8 million over four years, so $2 million a year, and when you think we have $5 billion in new revenue, plus the majority party raised taxes over a billion dollars, it鈥檚 a matter of priorities,” Padden said.

鈥淭here are some members in the House Democratic leadership that believe that nobody should go to jail no matter how many DUIs they have; they only should go if they have a vehicular assault or vehicular homicide. Of course that鈥檚 what we鈥檙e trying to prevent,” Padden added.

Rep. Ormsby labeled that claim as “inaccurate and ignorant.”

There are some lawmakers who prefer to focus on getting drunk drivers the treatment they need, rather than trying to incarcerate their way out of the problem. Padden stressed all session that the rehabilitation-centric approach doesn鈥檛 work with habitual DUI offenders, many of whom have been through multiple stints in treatment.

Padden also noted that his measure was supported by members of both parties, and would likely have passed by a wide margin if House Democratic leaders had permitted the House to vote.

鈥淚 want to be clear, this is not a partisan issue. We couldn鈥檛 have gotten it through the Senate without the support of the majority party, and we appreciate the efforts of everyone who saw this as an important issue. Our challenge next year will be to convince individual members that impaired driving is a serious problem that warrants the Legislature鈥檚 attention.鈥�

Both Padden and Goodman plan to bring their proposals back next year, but Goodman says there will 鈥渟till be a battle over the look-back and whether we鈥檙e willing to pay for it.鈥�

鈥淲hat really troubles me is there鈥檚 probably some folks that won鈥檛 be around next year, because they will have been killed by somebody who has had multiple DUIs. We know that repeat offenders are the ones most likely to have vehicular homicides or vehicular assaults, 鈥淧adden said.