Compromise Passed on Drug Crime-Driver License Link

The Legislature on Thursday approved an unusual compromise plan that for now would suspend the licenses of drivers convicted of any drug offense, thereby averting the threatened loss of $92 million in federal highway funds.

On lopsided votes, the two-bill “smoke a joint, lose your license” legislation sailed from the Senate and the Assembly to Gov. Pete Wilson, who aides said will sign the package next week.

The first bill, which will take effect as soon as Wilson signs it, will require a six-month suspension of the driver’s license of anyone found guilty of a drug violation, even if the offense does not involve a vehicle.

That bill (AB 74) by Assemblyman Larry Bowler (R-Elk Grove) will expire June 30, 1999. At that point, the second bill in the compromise package will become the operative law.

The second measure (SB 131), by Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco), goes in the opposite direction, declaring that California opposes suspending driver’s licenses for drug crimes unrelated to operation of a motor vehicle.

Legislative approval of the two conflicting statements of policy represented an unusual political compromise brought about by a 1991 federal anti-drug law. In that measure, Congress required states either to enact laws that required license suspensions for drug convictions or to go on record as opposing that idea. If states failed to make that choice, Congress declared, federal highway construction and maintenance funds--$92 million in California’s case--would be frozen.

Opponents of suspending driver’s licenses for any drug crime, such as smoking marijuana, argued that the penalty fell unfairly on motorists convicted of crimes that did not involve driving. California long has suspended and revoked licenses for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they noted.

But supporters of license suspensions countered that the penalty was part of a national anti-drug strategy. They said it served as a deterrent to the use of illegal substances anywhere.

Voting on bills that could be perceived as relaxing penalties for drug use always puts election-conscious lawmakers in a painful political spot. But being able to vote both ways for the two-bill compromise dulled the pain.

By voting for the conflicting mix of temporary and permanent changes, opponents and supporters could tell constituents they backed license suspension for drug users and rebuffed federal interference in California affairs.

“Everybody seems to be very, very happy,” Kopp crowed.

Starting last fall, Clinton administration officials have warned that unless California complied with federal law, it would lose the funds this year. Wilson and legislative leaders had promised compliance by April 7, but missed their deadline by one week.

Nationwide, 18 states have embraced the license revocation and 31 have refused to do so. Until March 1, California achieved compliance by suspending licenses for drug offenses.

The California statute, which had been in effect only six months, cost the licenses of almost 10,000 motorists. An earlier short-term law was enacted in 1994 but expired.

Although both bills provoked controversy earlier this year, there was no debate Friday on the compromise. The Assembly sent the Bowler bill to Wilson on a 72-0 vote, while the Senate voted 28 to 7 on the Kopp measure.