Introduction
It has become increasingly important to go ahead and improve existing state laws concerning driver safety. This is the main purpose of the newly enacted law in the state which seeks to cover on key areas that required adjustment concerning driver and road safety in the state. Sponsored by Senator Jim McClendon, the bill has the overall objective of implementing key amendments concerning section 32-5A-191, and 32-5A-191.4. This would see key changes regarding how driving under the influence would be treated in the state. A key feature that has been highlighted concerning the bill is its provision of ignition interlock as a key element of driver safety in the state. The bill seeks to ensure that there is a balance between punishing Driving Under the Influence DUI, offenders as well as ensuring that they can be able to commute at their own will and in a safe manner. The use of ignition interlock achieves this by ensuring that the driver demonstrates their driving competency (drug wise) and if they fail, are locked out and cannot operate their vehicle. This paper elaborates further on the bill and its developments as well overall impact on the state.
Background to the Bill
Looking at the key features of the bill as well as developments from being drafted to being enacted is vital also to understand it. As identified above the bill sponsored by Sen. Jim McClendon, was first introduced to the Senate committee on 9 th January 2018, and for the several weeks underwent the entire process of enacting a bill (Legiscan, 2018). It should be mentioned that the bill sought to make amendments concerning certain critical aspects of driver safety and laws in the state. The main elements of the bill include the following factors, the first is driving under the influence, whereby the prescribed levels are discussed concerning when and in which a driver is supposed to be in before deemed competent to drive. This is especially concerning individuals previously convicted with DUI’s. Secondly, there is the important aspect of ignition interlock devices and how they will be used for preventing an intoxicated driver from taking the wheel. Other key aspects such as how these devices will be implemented, the use of court fees and state funds are also mentioned. Therefore, understanding the background as well as the key factors that shape bill is imperative before proceeding with the analysis.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Bill Progression
The next crucial aspect of this bill analysis is looking at how it progressed through their various stages including the readings, house committee sessions and changes made. After it was first introduced by Senator McClendon to the Senate, on January 9 th, 2018, the bill underwent several stages through which it was analyzed by both houses as well as continuously structured to achieve its objective of increased driver and road safety in the state. Majority of the bill progression took place on January 25 th, 2018, where the third reading took place, after the second reading on 11 th of the same month. Additionally, key amendments were discussed as well as identified by the Senate. Here the different motions that were contained in the bill were discussed and structured to fit the view of the Senate.
After this rigorous process that saw four rigorous roll calls, the bill was engrossed by the Senate on 30 th of January 2018 (Legiscan, 2018). On the same day, the bill was first read to the “House of Representative Committee on the judiciary. During March, the bill was reviewed and sent back and forth between the Senate and the House of Representatives, whereby more clarification and amendments were made. However, it did proceed through the final stages of the progression and was able to achieve support from the both the Senate and the House of representatives. Eventually, on 29 th of March 2018, the bill after approval was assigned act no. 2018-517 and on the same date forwarded to the governor for signing (Legiscan, 2018).
House Votes
It is also crucial to touch on the house votes made as the bill progressed and how these were important especially finally for the outcome. From a general standpoint, the bill did receive support or a positive reception from the Senate as well as committees that originate from the House of Representatives. The one major challenge that it encountered was at “Mooney motion to table,” where the bill failed concerning votes cast. At this point, it received 64 Nays, and 24 Yea’s indicating that it was not in favor with the Senate, concerning tabling (Legiscan, 2018). However, the motion was later adopted on the same day.
Arguments for and Against the Bill
At the center of the Bill, is the critical issue of an interlocking ignition device to monitor and regulate how individuals convicted with DUI’s operate their vehicles. This device serves the role of ensuring that the individual does not in any way repeat the offense of driving will be under the influence. This subject matter has caught the attention of numerous political as well as media analysts in the state. One who has discussed the matter is (Moseley, 2018). A critical item that the source identifies is the general reaction concerning the bill and how whether it may achieve its overall objective of drivers cutting down on DUI’s. It is possible to derive some of the reasons proposed for and against it, and these are discussed in the subsequent sections.
Overall Cost of the Bill
A key issue that is raised both by (Moseley, 2018), as well as throughout the bill progression period was how the bill cost structure would be able to become feasible for the state. In this case, what was being clarified is that requiring DUI offenders to install the ignition interlocking devices would be a costly state. Thus it was important to understand how this was going to be implemented. What was identified especially by McClendon the bill proposer, was that the state would append its fine collection and use to include these devices for special conditions where the offender could not afford one. The program would simply ensure that the burden was placed on the state where necessary to ensure that the individual does not suffer at the expense of the bill. This counter-argument increased the overall applicability of the approach, especially concerning implementation. It also elaborates on why there was a need to touch on fines regarding collection and use.
Effectiveness concerning cutting down DUI’s in the State
The second item explored concerning the bill is given its new approach, it would be important to ask whether it would be effective regarding cutting down driving under the influence in the state as well as some of its adverse outcomes. This argument was met by critical propositions that are found in the bill, which further justified its viability. For example, the critical need to ensure that previously convicted offenders concerning DUI’s are offered the opportunity to resume a normal lifestyle, while still being monitored to repeat the offense. The approach, not only allow the state to cut down on DUI’s but also take up a non-interference or minimal oversight on the matter. This was supported by the fact that the devices would serve the important role of also collecting data on the previously convicted offenders in the state. The approach, which uses more technology and less manpower could have important implications on both the issue of DUI and general law enforcement in the state. Thus, the effectiveness of the approach was well supported, explaining why the bill was successful in the long run.
Sponsor Groups and Key outcomes
The final aspect to examine concerning the bill, now an act, is some of the support and sponsorship it received outside of the political context, and some of the outcomes sought after. Concerning this, is that a key interest group that can be referred to when discussing the bill is the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Association (MADD) (The Associated Press, 2018) . This group which is present in the state as well as others both in the United States as well as Canada has been a central role in increasing safe driving. Part of how this objective is achieved is by ensuring proper laws that govern the matter. From, the official page, the organization has had a keen interest in cutting down drunk driving in the areas where it is present (MADD, 2018). While it is difficult to trace its role regarding the bill, one should note that the two share the same core objective of reducing DUI’s. Therefore, identifying this link was a critical part of possibly tracing the organization as outside but interest party in the act. It also identifies some of the possible outcomes that can result from their involvement, with increased oversight on DUI offenders being a major one. Finally, the act does come out as a proper upgrade especially with regards to ensuring that laws and regulations adapt to changing times. The infusion of technology provides a new approach towards addressing DUI’s and could show the bill as highly effective regarding curbing the problem.
References
Legiscan., (2018). AL| SB1| Regular Session. Alabama Senate Bill 1. Legiscan. Retrieved April 27, 2018, from https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB1/2018
MADD, (2018). OUR STORY. MADD . Retrieved April 27, 2018, from https://www.madd.org/about-us/our-story/
Moseley, B., (2018). Legislature passed bill requiring drivers with a DUI to use an Interlocking device. Alabama Political Reporter . Retrieved April 27, 2018, from http://www.alreporter.com/2018/04/04/legislature-passed-bill-requiring-drivers-with-a-dui-to-use-an-interlocking-device/
The Associated Press, (2018). Bill tightens Alabama law on ignition devices for DUI offenders. AL.COM . Retrieved April 27, 2018, from http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/03/alabama_law_on_ignition_device.html
