A pair of top DUI bills cracking down on drunken driving won’t become law this year as a result of either funding shortfalls or lawmakers maneuvering to halt their passage.
This legislative session, imposing a state “administrative license revocation” program — which would effectively revoke suspected drunken driver’s licenses immediately as opposed to waiting until court — as well as prohibiting automobile passengers from having an open container of alcohol, have been two signature DUI reforms discussed.
However, both bills were effectively killed for the year Wednesday and won’t be becoming law.
And despite it being the program that was Gov. Phil Bredesen’s top DUI legislation, the administrative license revocation bill was the first to fall by the wayside Wednesday.
Tennessee is one of just nine states that do not have such a law, and organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving had lobbied for its passage. But administrative license revocation costs $2.8 million, and Bredesen says he can’t afford it as he’s trying to trim $468 million from next year’s budget.
“Unfortunately, it is not possible to add dozens of new positions to administer this measure at the same time we are planning workforce reductions across government,” Bredesen wrote in a letter to Sen. Randy McNally (R-Oak Ridge), a bill sponsor.
According to a legislative fiscal note, the administrative license revocation bill would add 75 positions in state government. Bredesen has announced his intentions to cut 2,011 jobs from the state’s payroll.
Bredesen wrote in the letter that he was “disheartened” to not be able to fund administrative license revocation this year but said he planned to “reintroduce this measure at the earliest possible date.”
While Bredesen’s administrative license revocation bill was nixed because of funding shortages, a House panel effectively killed legislation modifying the state’s open container law.
The House Budget Subcommittee, commonly known on Capitol Hill as the “black hole,” effectively killed legislation that would have prohibited automobile passengers from having an open container of alcohol.
The Senate had previously passed the bill, imposing a $50 fine on those passengers caught.
The bill’s passage would have allowed $12 million in federal funds currently spent on DUI prevention to go toward road funding.
Lawmakers on the panel questioned the merits of freeing up the $12 million to allow it spent on building or paving roads.
“It doesn’t have to, but it’s probably going to go back into building roads,” said Rep. Randy Rinks (D-Savannah) of the federal funding.
Rep. Jon Lundberg (R-Bristol), the bill’s sponsor, said the road funding argument made by opposing lawmakers wasn’t logical because the money can still be spent for DUI prevention or for roads.
“I think they are doing their best to create a semblance of why you’re voting against a bill that, to most people in Tennessee, I think makes very common sense,” Lundberg said.
The bill was killed for the year by sending it to a “summer study” committee.
Applying the state’s open container law to passengers has been brought for 18 years in the Legislature but has never passed the state House, Lundberg said.
Tennessee’s law is commonly known as a “pass the bottle” law because it allows drivers with an open container to simply hand their beverage to a passenger.
By Roman's comment, he won't make the cut! lol Those of us who are half way intelligent know that all you have to do is hand your drink to the guys in the backseat, and then after the police let you go (because you didn't quite make the "bad" level yet) you can continue to drink while you're driving! Wow, that's just so difficult to do.... yeehaw! Later, after you've run that red light and killed some little family, you can try to say you're sorry to the remaining family members.... We've all been there, done it, seen it, witnessed the idiots swerving, etc.. And when you ask you neighbor why he was swerving all over the road that day, he'll tell you he was just fine, wasn't swerving, only had a few drinks, blah blah blah...
OK I have a crazy idea, next time everyone vote for people who have common sense.
The liquor and beer distribution lobbyists strike again!
Taking peoples license does NOT stop them from driving. They need to make stronger laws for people who are caught driving on revoked licenses if the reason they are revoked is for a DUI.
Don't you remember the videos a few years back???? Some TV reporter showed violators of DUI and other violations "DRIVING" away after the judge took their license! How duh was that?! The judge was impotent at best for not preventing the person from driving away AT THE COURTHOUSE! What a hoot! And as for driving w/o a license, we have thousands who just got here from south of the border, driving w/o a license every day.
You know, there is already a law against drunk driving. Passing an open container to a passenger won't make a driver sober. If he's drunk, he can be prosecuted now. If not, he's done no harm so leave him the hell alone. There is no need for an open container law.
Alpha, who would that be exactly?? lol
I dont understand the thrust behind this law. If someone is not drunk while they are driving then why would they get a citation?The mere act of drinking a beer does not impair your driving.
BigP, it's not "you" the law is addressing... it's the young people, frat boys, serious alcoholics, etc.. who don't have self-control but yet, want to drink and drive. Maybe when the officer first pulls them over, they've only consumed 1 and 1/2 beers, but if he lets them drive off, the kid will continue w/his consumption and kill someone. The law is meant to be a preventative measure. If you want to pull over and drink at a park or whatever, fine, but to drink AND drive is too much responsibility for the average citizen. Hell, my mom can't do it. She'd drink a whole bottle of wine w/o realizing she was plastered. Trust me on this one. These laws are no different than banning smoking in restaurants. They're strictly for the purpose of protecting other citizens from your vices.
Why shouldn't the passenger in a car be able to drink all he wants? He's not driving, and is no threat to other motorists. Why should the passenger's freedom be restricted if he's not breaking any laws or hurting anybody?The other part of the law would allow a random police officer to decide whether or not to suspend your drivers license, based solely upon the officer's judgment.Thousands of people drive in this city every day without a valid drivers license.How much freedom are you people willing to give away for the illusion of safety?
good points, asdfg. "illusion of safety"
"22784
Correct, Alph, since we were among the last to prohibit smoking in public places. And if you're not going to outlaw open container, then I should be allowed to text-message while I'm driving as well. Hey, I'm good at it, don't swerve, can stop at a light in time. Golly gee.
I've always wondered who the hell people are talking to all the time when they drive? Or texting...
Oooooh, that's easy.... a husband who's checking to see what time dinner will be, a 24 yr old son who wants to know how much longer Mom will be out running erands so he can quit babysitting, the plumber to say he'll be late, the painter to say the colors didn't match, to dentist, the doctor, the freaking vet, the grandmother wanting to know when we'll be coming to visit... 'cause no one can WAIT until you get home to answer you land line these days. Geez! LOL And my favorite: the school to say your kid bit another 3 year old on the playground, and that the little monster is now in "time out."
Oh, and my other favorite: the secretary of the head of Purity Dairies to ask for my home address to send a Christmas card to. I had my oldest child answer for me that time.
Alphadog7,How is a drinking passenger a threat to anyone?Do you really want to criminalize harmless conduct because another person MIGHT break the law?
How did we function before cell phones...JUST FINE