Legislative Roundup - Week 7

Lawmakers Table Bill That Would Have Added Additional Penalties to First-Time DUI Offenses

The House Judiciary Committee on Friday tabled a bill that would have increased minimum penalties for first-time driving under the influence offenses to four days in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000.

Current Montana law penalizes an individual's first DUI with a minimum of 24 hours in jail and a minimum fine of $600.

"This bill addresses concerns I have with people dying on our roads due to people driving vehicles under the influence," said Rep. Terry Falk, R-Kalispell, the sponsor of House Bill 404. "The simple question of course is – you know this is one of those issues that transcends race, gender, religion, political party, age, etc. – what is the value of one life?"

HB 404 would have also increased the penalty to drivers operating a vehicle under the influence with passengers under the age of 16. Those punishments would increase to a minimum of five days in jail and a minimum fine of $1,800.

Montana ranked as a top-five state when it comes to impaired driving related deaths between 2009 and 2018, according to the CDC. According to the Montana Department of Transportation, 66 percent of fatalities on state highways were a result of impaired driving in 2020, which increased from 58 percen in 2019.

"If you look at the number of deaths in 2020, and it's the same rate this year, we're looking at about two deaths every five days, so in the time we've been here at the legislature that's maybe nine or ten deaths," Falk said. "I'm not suggesting that we can control everything that I like to call the 'human factor.' People will do what people will do, but what can we do to move the needle on this?"

Dan Smith, executive director of the Montana Police Protective Association, said in support of the bill that the first offense of driving under the influence is where individuals need to be made aware that their actions are not acceptable.

"If we do that effectively on the first offense hopefully we don't have the second or third one," Smith said.

Smith said the goal of HB 404 is to educate people on the damage driving impaired does and get the word out that the state takes these crimes seriously.

Brian Thompson, representing the County Attorneys Association, spoke in opposition to the bill, despite agreeing with what supporters said about the dangers of impaired driving. Thompson said the bill could lead to unintended consequences. He said the financial penalty increases in the bill should remain, but the additional jail time should be stricken from the bill.

"The increase in the jail time penalty may lead to fewer convictions of first-time DUI," Thompson said. "Many DUI convictions happen according to plea deals, somebody comes in, pleads to it, it saves them time and money with their attorney, it saves the county time and money with their efforts."

Thompson said that last session the legislature passed two pieces of legislation – one that rewrote all the DUI statutes in a more organized manner, and the second was to increase penalties on DUI's beyond the fourth offense.

"In the state of Montana prior to last session, you could be going on your eighth, ninth, tenth DUI and your penalty was 14 months," Thompson said. "We increased that last session with the legislature so that people that are on their fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth DUI can spend some real time in prison, because clearly they have not demonstrated their ability to participate in a society in a safe way."

Bill Tabled That Would Bring Traffic Violation Cameras to Montana Roads

Lawmakers unanimously tabled a bill on Wednesday, Jan. 15, that would have allowed cities or towns to implement cameras at traffic intersections, so called "red-light cameras" to help enforce traffic laws. Under the bill, however, those cameras could not lead to giving citations.

Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, presented House Bill 414 to the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 14.

"I am honestly not passionate one way or another about the red light cameras, but I am passionate about local control and I think that there is no better example of where local control belongs than when it comes to regulating traffic in your town," Stafman said. "It's not an issue for the state."

Stafman said the bill was introduced in the name of Kelly Fulton, a 40-year-old teacher in Bozeman who was fatally struck by a driver while riding his bicycle last October.

Currently under Montana law it is prohibited for cities to have a red-light camera posted on stoplights. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have passed laws allowing red-light cameras to be placed at intersections within cities to catch traffic violations, with eight states, including Montana, prohibiting them.

Red-light cameras, or modernly referred to as automatic license plate readers, are used as an automated law enforcement tool that photographs vehicles when they have entered into a traffic zone after the light has already shifted to red.

Logan Smith, interim executive director of Bike Walk Montana, said in support of the bill that this bill would make biking and walking on streets safer for Montanans in cities such as Bozeman and Missoula.

"It will increase the safety through encouraging safe driving habits, ensuring the safety of drivers, passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians alike," Smith said. "It's well documented and studied that automated traffic control systems and red-light cameras have resulted in a reduction of crashes."

Smith said that the implementation of the systems also has the ability to reduce the severity of intersection accidents and that over 80% of pedestrians fatally injured on roadways happen in urban areas.

"It is a practical approach in allowing state and local areas to consider where to place automated traffic control systems. We believe this bill will benefit all Montanans," Smith said. "HB 414 will make an impact on the health and safety of our communities and all users."

Three other individuals spoke in support of the bill and shared similar sentiments to Smith.

Robin Turner, representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, opposed the bill, saying that there is a fundamental fairness being stripped away from residents if a ticket is issued through the mail to a person who wasn't driving a vehicle.

"What you're doing and what cities are doing in this particular situation is they're shifting the burden of proof to that person who's accused rather than the state having to meet its own burden," Turner said.

Turner said this would be a violation of the Montana Constitution's guaranteed right to privacy. She said that this could be used for data collection, and their implementation of these tools would stray from the mission of the bill.

Bill Would Create Gas Tax Equivalent for Electric Vehicles

A bill moving through the Montana Legislature would add an annual fee to all completely electric vehicles in the state.

Rep. Denley Loge, R-St. Regis, is sponsoring House Bill 60 which would add an annual fee for each electric car to substitute for the gas tax that drivers of fuel-powered vehicles pay at the pump.

"I talk about this being taking away a free ride, and right now we have a gas tax that pays for some of the fees that go to fixing our roads, and we get some match money that comes along with this," Loge said.

The bill passed the House of Representatives 92-8 on Jan. 25 and moved to the Senate, where the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs passed it to the full Senate on a unanimous vote on Thursday, Feb. 17.

Loge said in the Senate committee hearing for the bill that because electric vehicles aren't using gasoline, owners of the vehicle aren't paying into the gas tax fund that helps support transportation infrastructure throughout the state.

The bill would also make it so that when an electric vehicle is licensed with the state there would be an additional fee. The fee charges vary based on the type of car that is being licensed under this distinction, and could vary from $130 to over $1,000 depending on weight. The annual fee would also be smaller if the car is a hybrid and uses gas in some capacity.

"It's not to punish anyone, it's just to get so everyone is paying their fair share, it's a road-use fee," Loge said.

Duane Williams, executive director of the Montana Trucking Association, said in support of the bill that the trucking industry currently pays nearly half of the fees that go toward Montana roads, and that his organization is interested in everyone who uses the state's roads paying their fair share.

John MacDonald, representing the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, also spoke in support of the bill, saying that his alliance supplies between 90 percent to 95 percent of the vehicles that are on the state roads, and that they worked with the sponsor to make sure the fees were fair.

"We are typically not cheerleaders or champions of legislation that increases, or puts a new fee on our products, however, what we really are concerned about is making sure that electric vehicles do pay their fair share, and ensuring that the method that is brought forth in each of the states is fair," MacDonald said.

MacDonald said the $190 fee for the level-two vehicles in the bill is a little higher than his association would like to see, but it is not unfair or egregious.

HB 60 had three other supporters testify who shared the same sentiments that electric vehicle owners should pay their fair share for road use without paying the state's gas tax.

Ian Lund, representing the Montana Environmental Information Center, opposed the bill, saying that the fee numbers calculated are a little high.

"If you look around the region for example, you can see North Dakota has a $120 fee for electric vehicles compared to our $130. Utah only has $90 and no escalation for higher weight vehicles," Lund said.

Lund said that electric vehicles should not have to pay a basic gas stax equivalent because cars that are more eco-friendly and get better gas mileage already pay less in gas tax per year.

"I think EV's are still a new product, we don't necessarily need to be adding this tax, which is also not really in line with the gas tax where you pay less gas tax the more efficient your vehicle is," Lund said. "These types of vehicles are still very much coming out, and are not at cost parity with internal combustion engine counterparts, and adding these fees to an already expensive technology is harmful to their adoption."

Lund also said that the registration fee is a blunt instrument because many electric vehicles with smaller batteries won't travel the distance each year that the fee numbers were equated with.

Bill Would Allow Students to Claim Self Defense in Bullying Incidents

If a bill in the House Education Committee gets legislative approval, schools could not punish students who claim to be acting in self defense on behalf of themselves or another child being bullied at school.

"If we're going to have an anti-bullying policy in the state then we also need to make sure that we're protecting self defense, because self defense is an inherent right," said Rep. Jedediah Hinkle, R-Belgrade, who is sponsoring House Bill 450.

The bill would create a system in which schools would have to conduct an investigation into physical altercations between students instead of punishing both students. Hinkle said many schools across the state have zero tolerance for violence under any circumstance, and will often punish both students in a situation that escalates to violence. He said this takes away a child's basic right to have the ability to protect themselves and others from harm.

Hinkle said many schools across the state don't implement anti-bullying policies effectively, and students should be allowed to defend themselves without the fear of punishment.

The bill would only permit the use of physical force from a child if the child is already being physically harmed, or is a witness to physical harm. The student would still be able to be punished if a physical attack was a result of verbal bullying. The bill would also not allow for a self-defense claim for fights in which students agree to physically attack one another.

"As maybe you know, maybe you don't know, when fights break out, a lot of things can happen, and we don't want to tie the hands of individuals who are acting in self defense," Hinkle said.

No one testified in support of the bill.

Lance Melton, representing the Montana School Boards Association, opposed the bill, but provided an amended version that he felt would be appropriate for that state and schools to implement.

"Our school districts do a pretty good job of sorting out who's the aggressor and who's being bullied, and are pretty careful about not just lumping them all together. The zero-tolerance policy so to speak doesn't exist," Melton said.

The amendment would provide a more limited description of when self defense can be used by a student. It would remove the ability to defend a third party if a student is a witness of someone being bullied, and would only permit the use of hands to defend themselves.

Melton said that the amendment could avoid bringing in self defense as a claim because it is often a very complicated legal matter. He believes that it is an effective alternative and provides a solid measurable right for a student to protect themselves.

"When you talk about self defense in a criminal case, that's an affirmative defense. It means that no one has to prove that you didn't defend yourself. The obligation rests with the defendant who's charged with a crime," Melton said. "There are several people cooling their heels in Deer Lodge right now who asserted that very defense along the way. It's highly complex, highly litigated, and very difficult to discern."

Melton said there are no limits to self defense, and that it doesn't belong in schools to the extent that it applies to criminal cases. He said in public schools students are watched over by adults and actions that could be viewed as self defense are unnecessary.

Sarah Piper, director of policy for the Montana Federation of Public Employees, also spoke opposing the bill saying that while she appreciated Hinkle's concern with student safety, this would not be the right step toward that goal.

"Our members care deeply about their students and this raises some concerns as to the ability of the staff to determine who is the protected party and who is not," Piper said.

Piper said she had not seen the amendment, but believed that it could be a reasonable approach, however, she has reservations that the bill would then be redundant and would simply align with what is already in policy for public schools.

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.

Caven Wade is a student reporter with the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Broadcasters Association, the Montana Newspaper Association and the Greater Montana Foundation. He can be reached at [email protected].