All voters should vote for the man or woman and not the party platform. If an individual does not toe the party line and is rejected, he should not be restricted from serving the public in his chosen elected position.
The first being whether or not a candidate should be able to run on multiple lines, also known as 'fusion voting.'
The second is whether or not a candidate should be a member of the party he/she is running for.
The answer to the first questions is...maybe. There are different schools of thought on this but in New York it is allowed so you see major party candidates scrambling for endorsements from minor parties to get their names on the ballot as often as possible. I've been through the process myself and I didn't love it.
The nice thing about fusion voting is that it allows people to vote their conscience. There may be an environmentalist who isn't happy with the Dems so they can vote for the same candidate on the Green line, or maybe there's a pastor who's been turned off by the Republicans, he may be able to vote on the Conservative or RTL lines.
The downside to fusion voting is that it encourages (excuse the term) bullshit. Candidates will do whatever it takes to get as many lines as possible, and logic suggests that if a candidate appears on four separate lines he or she probably told a few fibs during the interview process.
The other question raised in the poll was whether or not a candidate should have to be a member of the party he/she is running for. Obviously, this is a bad idea. First off, it would preclude all non-affiliated people to petition a separate line which would then appear at the very bottom of the ballot. These independent lines are very difficult to secure. The petition process is grueling and the likelihood of having the line thrown out entirely during review is very high.
Without going too deep into election law, I'll say that it's hard enough already for a person to run for a party they're not affiliated with. The petition, endorsement and primary processes do a good job of weeding out the undesirables.
What sort of non-sense do they have to go through now? Quite a bit, it seems to me.
The way I see it, the only people who benefit from the current system are the two major parties. Third party candidates are pretty much precluded from running their own candidates since they're too busy making sure they back one of the front runners.
Which is why I would expect members of the two majors to back the current system. A system that fostered more candidates would be counter productive to the current Republicrat monopoly.
Not that California's system has done much better of paving the way for third parties, but it least there's a better shot at alternative voices rising up.
It's a lot less nonsense if non-affiliated candidates are allowed on a party line. Forcing them to create a line hurts the democratic process in two ways. First, you're forcing non-affiliateds to the bottom of the ballot, immediately hurting their chances of winning a race. Second, you're telling political parties who they can and can't endorse for office.
Depending on how I feel on any given morning I can argue both ways about fusion voting, but I could never be convinced that a person should be legally barred from any party line simply based on their registration.
Why is a non-affiliated candidate forced to the bottom of the ballot?
Further, the idea of a non-affiliated running seems like a total one-off sort of situation. And if the Republicrats weren't so dominate, it wouldn't even be an issue.
The order of parties on the ballot is decided by vote totals in the previous gubernatorial election. Any independent lines are automatically placed at the bottom.
One other thing that's come up in this conversation is that minor party members are discouraged from running due to major party dominance. That's true, but I have the cure:
Take the private money out of elections. Publicly funded elections where all interested candidates are working with the same resources allow them equal opportunity to get their message out. It also keeps the winner from owing favors to special interests. I know, it's a pipe dream.
CM states on his website that he is running for Assembly on the Green and Democratic lines, yet there is no Green Line listed for the 139th district seat on the official NYS Board of Elections Ballot.
There will be a Green Party line on the ballot in November, because statewide, the Green Party earned enough petition signatures to place Howie Hawkins, Gloria Mattera, Julia Willebrand, Cecile Lawrence, Colia Clark, Hank Bardell, Anthony Gronowicz, Ann Roos, John Reynolds, Walter Nestler, Carl Lundgren, Trevor Archer, Daniel Zuger and Mike Donelly on the ballot.
Of the minimum 1200 signatures required to be in their company, I garnered over 500- more than sufficient if a nominee, but... And not surprisingly, the Republican Party challenged. The growing number of independent voters are a hot commodity, and the GOP cum Independence cum Conservative hamstring has no intention of letting the unaffiliated graze far-afield.
The upside, thanks to local Democrats, I'm in the race.
Political parties that nominate candidates submit a designating petition with mandated signature totals no less than 5% of that party's enrollment. Independent candidates submit nominating petitions, signatures no less than 5% of ALL ACTIVE VOTERS embodied in the jurisdiction of the office sought. ...A substantial difference.
The the order of the ballot is an easy statute fix.
In California, each cycle the Secretary State puts all of the letters of the alphabet in a hat and draws them out one by one. That determines the ballot order for all races.
The current New York systems is just another sop to the Republicrats, designed to ensure ongoing dominance.
And Chris, don't you think that if public money were found to be Constitutional (meaning an end to free speech on who donors support), don't you think the Republicrats will ensure that the top vote getters in the previous gubernatorial election, or similar nonsense, will be able to ensure that only the Republicrats get the bulk of the public money?
Money isn't speech Howard. Would be donors can still exercise their rights by volunteering for campaigns. People spend so much time complaining about special interests, how do you think those special interests get in the ear of legislators. It certainly isn't by threatening to withhold votes.
When I talk about public funding, I mean that all candidates would be funded equally.
Public funding will never happen though since campaigns are an advertising smorgasbord for every media outlet imaginable. They are also an avenue for well funded special interests to insert themselves into politics. You want to see pro-life and pro-choice groups join hands in unity? Tell them they can't spend millions of dollars on campaigns anymore.
God forbid a person in the United States be allowed to run for anything other than dog catcher without selling his soul for campaign money.
Money is speech. It's an expression of who a person wishes to represent them. It's just as much speech as volunteering for a campaign (which if money isn't speech, neither is action, so volunteering wouldn't be speech either.)
Money is also protected under right to free assembly, by choosing who you will associate with.
I'm not arguing against public funding. I'm merely pointing out the impossible Constitutional issue to overcome to prohibit people from financially supporting their candidates.
I'd be fine with money as speech if it weren't obvious that enormous expenditures by certain groups negatively affect the average citizen's ability to exercise their own right to free speech. No one person has a larger share of first amendment rights than another.
Steve Hawley states on his website that he's against unfunded mandates and for lower taxes, yet he cosponsored a bill that saddles county government with paying for ignition interlocks, part of Leandra's Law and voted against allowing New Yorkers to write-off property taxes on their state income tax.
My website faux pas is not intentional deception. Its design was the work of the Monroe County Green Party while optimistic about petitioning. Voters who want to express themselves outside party lines, feel free to cast a write-in vote!
CM I thought this is a about a poll..Should candidates be allowed to run on multiple party lines..Not about why we should vote for you and not Steve Hawley...Or how you didn't get on the green party line..
Cris writes "The downside to fusion voting is that it encourages (excuse the term) bullshit. Candidates will do whatever it takes to get as many lines as possible, and logic suggests that if a candidate appears on four separate lines he or she probably told a few fibs during the interview process."
Although you and I differ on alot of issues that statement is spot on! At the very least, party endorsements allow voters to get a better idea of exaclty what candidates stand for. If a candidate wants to become a hybrid, then run that way but the price may be party endorsement.
CM, I wasn't taking aim at your website or the Green Party Line. I was just trying to make sense of an inconsistency that was brought to light with this poll question.
If I was going to take aim at your Solutions not Excuses website, I would take exception to your 5-word stance on unfunded mandates..."unfunded mandates should not exist". It is neither a solution nor an excuse. It is, more accurately, a platitude that every politician subscribes to.
I see no provision in Leandra's Law that will result in an unfunded mandate to our county government. A convicted driver is not permitted to drive a vehicle that is not equipped with an interlock device. If they cannot afford to install and maintain the device, then they are not permitted to drive. Period. To me, it's no different than someone that can't afford their auto insurance and has to turn their plates in. They can't drive their car. It's not the government's responsibility to enable anyone's driving privileges through public funds, especially someone convicted of DWI.
As far as the property tax issue you referred to...can you cite the bill #? I don't know what bill you are referring to.
Your opinion isn't based on fact JoAnne. For God's sake, even the county manager and Republican legislators were out in public flogging Albany for this one.
Hawley and Ranzenhofer admitted to not fully understanding the implications of certain portions of the bill. To their credit, they came out a day or two after they got beat up and insisted that they'd do what they could to improve the ugly parts of it, but it is what it is at this point.
I'm not going to take our local representation to task here. They fell victim to the same disease that every legislator in the country has. They saw a 'feel good' bill and tripped over their own feet in a race to vote yes without considering the implications. It wasn't just our guys, it was everybody.
I've held the position that Leandra's Law should have been passed without the interlock portion and I've wondered publicly how many paid lobbyists the company that makes them has in Albany.
Chris, I am aware of the debate over unfunded mandates regarding Leandra's Law...I just don't agree. Most of the argument revolves around the question of who will pay for the interlock devices if a convicted driver can't afford to? It is my opinion that anyone convicted of DWI that can afford to legally drive a vehicle, can afford the interlock device.
The law states:
(a) The cost of installing and maintaining the ignition interlock
32 device shall be borne by the person subject to such condition UNLESS THE
33 COURT DETERMINES SUCH PERSON IS FINANCIALLY UNABLE TO AFFORD SUCH COST
34 WHEREUPON SUCH COST MAY BE IMPOSED PURSUANT TO A PAYMENT PLAN OR WAIVED.
Here is my logic:
FACT: If you own a car, NYS requires you to have auto insurance coverage.
FACT: If you are convicted of DWI and are required to have an interlock system installed...your auto insurance rates are going to go up astronomically. (For many people, this alone would make driving cost prohibitive)
FACT: The cost of installing and maintaining an interlock device would be less than the cost of maintaining auto insurance.
FACT: Anyone that can afford the auto insurance, therefore can afford the interlock device.
FACT: In order to be granted a waiver for the cost of the interlock device, a driver would have to convince a judge that they cannot afford the device.
CONCLUSION: How can anyone convince a judge that they can afford $500/month (more or less)for auto insurance, but can't afford the cost of the interlock device, which is much less per month? It is not the court's problem that a driver may not be able to afford their auto insurance AFTER having to pay for the interlock device; and there is nothing in the law that says not being able to afford auto insurance is grounds for a waiver.
No waivers would be granted; therefore, there would be no unfunded mandates.
They'll convince the judges by explaining that they need to drive to get to work. Tough times, etc, etc.. Can't afford another monthly bill etc, etc.. Still have to feed the family etc, etc...
My thought on the interlock cost was that if a person can't afford it they should be required to work for the county on weekends to cover the cost. There is always litter to be picked up, and a multitude of other menial tasks that could be performed by drunk drivers who can't afford their interlock device.
The rules that determine the qualifications for a waiver are up to the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives to determine.
IN THE EVENT OF SUCH WAIVER, THE COST OF THE DEVICE SHALL BE BORNE IN
36 ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER PARAGRAPH (G)
G) THE DIVISION OF PROBATION AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES SHALL
10 PROMULGATE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE BY PERSONS
11 ORDERED TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES TO PROVIDE
12 STANDARDS FOR MONITORING BY DEPARTMENTS OF PROBATION, AND OPTIONS FOR
13 MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE BY SUCH PERSONS, THAT COUNTIES MAY ADOPT AS AN
14 ALTERNATIVE TO MONITORING BY A DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION.
It is within their descretion to write very stringent or very loose regulations regarding waivers; which could include ideas similar to yours to work off their debt.
I think judicial discretion will be the key to keeping the program from becoming one giant unfunded mandate. They will know who deserves a second chance (grant waiver) and who the habitual losers are (deny waiver).
Not to mention, that according to the law, the cost associated with the device is considered a fine, on top of and in addition to any other fines imposed.
Is the County now going to set a precedent and start subsidizing the fines imposed by the courts to anyone that claims they can't afford them? In these tough times, that would probably be the majority of people. It is the proverbial slippery slope.
As I said before, it is my opinion that unfunded mandates are discretionary and avoidable in this law rather than inherent and mandatory.
All voters should vote for
All voters should vote for the man or woman and not the party platform. If an individual does not toe the party line and is rejected, he should not be restricted from serving the public in his chosen elected position.
This poll actually raises two
This poll actually raises two separate issues.
The first being whether or not a candidate should be able to run on multiple lines, also known as 'fusion voting.'
The second is whether or not a candidate should be a member of the party he/she is running for.
The answer to the first questions is...maybe. There are different schools of thought on this but in New York it is allowed so you see major party candidates scrambling for endorsements from minor parties to get their names on the ballot as often as possible. I've been through the process myself and I didn't love it.
The nice thing about fusion voting is that it allows people to vote their conscience. There may be an environmentalist who isn't happy with the Dems so they can vote for the same candidate on the Green line, or maybe there's a pastor who's been turned off by the Republicans, he may be able to vote on the Conservative or RTL lines.
The downside to fusion voting is that it encourages (excuse the term) bullshit. Candidates will do whatever it takes to get as many lines as possible, and logic suggests that if a candidate appears on four separate lines he or she probably told a few fibs during the interview process.
The other question raised in the poll was whether or not a candidate should have to be a member of the party he/she is running for. Obviously, this is a bad idea. First off, it would preclude all non-affiliated people to petition a separate line which would then appear at the very bottom of the ballot. These independent lines are very difficult to secure. The petition process is grueling and the likelihood of having the line thrown out entirely during review is very high.
Without going too deep into election law, I'll say that it's hard enough already for a person to run for a party they're not affiliated with. The petition, endorsement and primary processes do a good job of weeding out the undesirables.
The election law can always
The election law can always be changed.
I never heard of "lines" until I moved to New York. It's always struck me as a little whacky.
To have a party's nomination, you should be a member of that party.
So what about non-affiliated
So what about non-affiliated people, Howard? What sort of nonsense should they be made to go through in order to run for office?
What sort of non-sense do
What sort of non-sense do they have to go through now? Quite a bit, it seems to me.
The way I see it, the only people who benefit from the current system are the two major parties. Third party candidates are pretty much precluded from running their own candidates since they're too busy making sure they back one of the front runners.
Which is why I would expect members of the two majors to back the current system. A system that fostered more candidates would be counter productive to the current Republicrat monopoly.
Not that California's system has done much better of paving the way for third parties, but it least there's a better shot at alternative voices rising up.
It's a lot less nonsense if
It's a lot less nonsense if non-affiliated candidates are allowed on a party line. Forcing them to create a line hurts the democratic process in two ways. First, you're forcing non-affiliateds to the bottom of the ballot, immediately hurting their chances of winning a race. Second, you're telling political parties who they can and can't endorse for office.
Depending on how I feel on any given morning I can argue both ways about fusion voting, but I could never be convinced that a person should be legally barred from any party line simply based on their registration.
Why is a non-affiliated
Why is a non-affiliated candidate forced to the bottom of the ballot?
Further, the idea of a non-affiliated running seems like a total one-off sort of situation. And if the Republicrats weren't so dominate, it wouldn't even be an issue.
The order of parties on the
The order of parties on the ballot is decided by vote totals in the previous gubernatorial election. Any independent lines are automatically placed at the bottom.
Howard, Your spot on the
Howard,
Your spot on the ballot is determined by the number of votes your party received in the last race for Governor.
Top spot this year will be the Democrats, followed by the Republican Party, Independence Party, Conservative Party, etc.
A non-affiliated candidate would be at the bottom.
It's been estimated that just being on the top line is worth 5% of the vote.
One other thing that's come
One other thing that's come up in this conversation is that minor party members are discouraged from running due to major party dominance. That's true, but I have the cure:
Take the private money out of elections. Publicly funded elections where all interested candidates are working with the same resources allow them equal opportunity to get their message out. It also keeps the winner from owing favors to special interests. I know, it's a pipe dream.
CM states on his website that
CM states on his website that he is running for Assembly on the Green and Democratic lines, yet there is no Green Line listed for the 139th district seat on the official NYS Board of Elections Ballot.
http://www.elections.state.ny.us:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=Candidat…
Is he a fusion candidate or not?
The Green line fell victim to
The Green line fell victim to the previously mentioned nonsense. Chris also has the WFP endorsement but won't be on the line.
There will be a Green Party
There will be a Green Party line on the ballot in November, because statewide, the Green Party earned enough petition signatures to place Howie Hawkins, Gloria Mattera, Julia Willebrand, Cecile Lawrence, Colia Clark, Hank Bardell, Anthony Gronowicz, Ann Roos, John Reynolds, Walter Nestler, Carl Lundgren, Trevor Archer, Daniel Zuger and Mike Donelly on the ballot.
Of the minimum 1200 signatures required to be in their company, I garnered over 500- more than sufficient if a nominee, but... And not surprisingly, the Republican Party challenged. The growing number of independent voters are a hot commodity, and the GOP cum Independence cum Conservative hamstring has no intention of letting the unaffiliated graze far-afield.
The upside, thanks to local Democrats, I'm in the race.
Political parties that nominate candidates submit a designating petition with mandated signature totals no less than 5% of that party's enrollment. Independent candidates submit nominating petitions, signatures no less than 5% of ALL ACTIVE VOTERS embodied in the jurisdiction of the office sought. ...A substantial difference.
The the order of the ballot
The the order of the ballot is an easy statute fix.
In California, each cycle the Secretary State puts all of the letters of the alphabet in a hat and draws them out one by one. That determines the ballot order for all races.
The current New York systems is just another sop to the Republicrats, designed to ensure ongoing dominance.
And Chris, don't you think that if public money were found to be Constitutional (meaning an end to free speech on who donors support), don't you think the Republicrats will ensure that the top vote getters in the previous gubernatorial election, or similar nonsense, will be able to ensure that only the Republicrats get the bulk of the public money?
Money isn't speech Howard.
Money isn't speech Howard. Would be donors can still exercise their rights by volunteering for campaigns. People spend so much time complaining about special interests, how do you think those special interests get in the ear of legislators. It certainly isn't by threatening to withhold votes.
When I talk about public funding, I mean that all candidates would be funded equally.
Public funding will never happen though since campaigns are an advertising smorgasbord for every media outlet imaginable. They are also an avenue for well funded special interests to insert themselves into politics. You want to see pro-life and pro-choice groups join hands in unity? Tell them they can't spend millions of dollars on campaigns anymore.
God forbid a person in the United States be allowed to run for anything other than dog catcher without selling his soul for campaign money.
"Money isn't speech
"Money isn't speech Howard"
Prove it.
Here's a link to start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Money is speech. It's an expression of who a person wishes to represent them. It's just as much speech as volunteering for a campaign (which if money isn't speech, neither is action, so volunteering wouldn't be speech either.)
Money is also protected under right to free assembly, by choosing who you will associate with.
I'm not arguing against public funding. I'm merely pointing out the impossible Constitutional issue to overcome to prohibit people from financially supporting their candidates.
I'd be fine with money as
I'd be fine with money as speech if it weren't obvious that enormous expenditures by certain groups negatively affect the average citizen's ability to exercise their own right to free speech. No one person has a larger share of first amendment rights than another.
Steve Hawley states on his
Steve Hawley states on his website that he's against unfunded mandates and for lower taxes, yet he cosponsored a bill that saddles county government with paying for ignition interlocks, part of Leandra's Law and voted against allowing New Yorkers to write-off property taxes on their state income tax.
My website faux pas is not intentional deception. Its design was the work of the Monroe County Green Party while optimistic about petitioning. Voters who want to express themselves outside party lines, feel free to cast a write-in vote!
CM I thought this is a about
CM I thought this is a about a poll..Should candidates be allowed to run on multiple party lines..Not about why we should vote for you and not Steve Hawley...Or how you didn't get on the green party line..
Are sample ballots available
Are sample ballots available for each district?
Cris writes "The downside to
Cris writes "The downside to fusion voting is that it encourages (excuse the term) bullshit. Candidates will do whatever it takes to get as many lines as possible, and logic suggests that if a candidate appears on four separate lines he or she probably told a few fibs during the interview process."
Although you and I differ on alot of issues that statement is spot on! At the very least, party endorsements allow voters to get a better idea of exaclty what candidates stand for. If a candidate wants to become a hybrid, then run that way but the price may be party endorsement.
Lower your popgun, Mark.
Lower your popgun, Mark. JoAnne took aim at my website and the Green Party line.
I never raised it CM..You
I never raised it CM..You need to lower your bullhorn..
CM, I wasn't taking aim at
CM, I wasn't taking aim at your website or the Green Party Line. I was just trying to make sense of an inconsistency that was brought to light with this poll question.
If I was going to take aim at your Solutions not Excuses website, I would take exception to your 5-word stance on unfunded mandates..."unfunded mandates should not exist". It is neither a solution nor an excuse. It is, more accurately, a platitude that every politician subscribes to.
I see no provision in Leandra's Law that will result in an unfunded mandate to our county government. A convicted driver is not permitted to drive a vehicle that is not equipped with an interlock device. If they cannot afford to install and maintain the device, then they are not permitted to drive. Period. To me, it's no different than someone that can't afford their auto insurance and has to turn their plates in. They can't drive their car. It's not the government's responsibility to enable anyone's driving privileges through public funds, especially someone convicted of DWI.
As far as the property tax issue you referred to...can you cite the bill #? I don't know what bill you are referring to.
JoAnne, unless a change was
JoAnne, unless a change was made to Leandra's Law, it is still one big unfunded mandate.
http://thebatavian.com/blogs/howard-owens/county-faced-big-expense-rela…
That article, as well as
That article, as well as others about the topic, are full of inaccuracies about the law.
There is confusion even among the law enforcement community charged with implementing it.
http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_917cfa13-3898-5759-a0f3-887a…
I've read the bill and I stand by my opinion.
Your opinion isn't based on
Your opinion isn't based on fact JoAnne. For God's sake, even the county manager and Republican legislators were out in public flogging Albany for this one.
Hawley and Ranzenhofer admitted to not fully understanding the implications of certain portions of the bill. To their credit, they came out a day or two after they got beat up and insisted that they'd do what they could to improve the ugly parts of it, but it is what it is at this point.
I'm not going to take our local representation to task here. They fell victim to the same disease that every legislator in the country has. They saw a 'feel good' bill and tripped over their own feet in a race to vote yes without considering the implications. It wasn't just our guys, it was everybody.
I've held the position that Leandra's Law should have been passed without the interlock portion and I've wondered publicly how many paid lobbyists the company that makes them has in Albany.
Chris, I am aware of the
Chris, I am aware of the debate over unfunded mandates regarding Leandra's Law...I just don't agree. Most of the argument revolves around the question of who will pay for the interlock devices if a convicted driver can't afford to? It is my opinion that anyone convicted of DWI that can afford to legally drive a vehicle, can afford the interlock device.
The law states:
(a) The cost of installing and maintaining the ignition interlock
32 device shall be borne by the person subject to such condition UNLESS THE
33 COURT DETERMINES SUCH PERSON IS FINANCIALLY UNABLE TO AFFORD SUCH COST
34 WHEREUPON SUCH COST MAY BE IMPOSED PURSUANT TO A PAYMENT PLAN OR WAIVED.
Here is my logic:
FACT: If you own a car, NYS requires you to have auto insurance coverage.
FACT: If you are convicted of DWI and are required to have an interlock system installed...your auto insurance rates are going to go up astronomically. (For many people, this alone would make driving cost prohibitive)
FACT: The cost of installing and maintaining an interlock device would be less than the cost of maintaining auto insurance.
FACT: Anyone that can afford the auto insurance, therefore can afford the interlock device.
FACT: In order to be granted a waiver for the cost of the interlock device, a driver would have to convince a judge that they cannot afford the device.
CONCLUSION: How can anyone convince a judge that they can afford $500/month (more or less)for auto insurance, but can't afford the cost of the interlock device, which is much less per month? It is not the court's problem that a driver may not be able to afford their auto insurance AFTER having to pay for the interlock device; and there is nothing in the law that says not being able to afford auto insurance is grounds for a waiver.
No waivers would be granted; therefore, there would be no unfunded mandates.
I do agree with your last paragraph 100%.
They'll convince the judges
They'll convince the judges by explaining that they need to drive to get to work. Tough times, etc, etc.. Can't afford another monthly bill etc, etc.. Still have to feed the family etc, etc...
My thought on the interlock cost was that if a person can't afford it they should be required to work for the county on weekends to cover the cost. There is always litter to be picked up, and a multitude of other menial tasks that could be performed by drunk drivers who can't afford their interlock device.
The rules that determine the
The rules that determine the qualifications for a waiver are up to the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives to determine.
IN THE EVENT OF SUCH WAIVER, THE COST OF THE DEVICE SHALL BE BORNE IN
36 ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER PARAGRAPH (G)
G) THE DIVISION OF PROBATION AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES SHALL
10 PROMULGATE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE BY PERSONS
11 ORDERED TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES TO PROVIDE
12 STANDARDS FOR MONITORING BY DEPARTMENTS OF PROBATION, AND OPTIONS FOR
13 MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE BY SUCH PERSONS, THAT COUNTIES MAY ADOPT AS AN
14 ALTERNATIVE TO MONITORING BY A DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION.
It is within their descretion to write very stringent or very loose regulations regarding waivers; which could include ideas similar to yours to work off their debt.
I think judicial discretion will be the key to keeping the program from becoming one giant unfunded mandate. They will know who deserves a second chance (grant waiver) and who the habitual losers are (deny waiver).
Not to mention, that according to the law, the cost associated with the device is considered a fine, on top of and in addition to any other fines imposed.
Is the County now going to set a precedent and start subsidizing the fines imposed by the courts to anyone that claims they can't afford them? In these tough times, that would probably be the majority of people. It is the proverbial slippery slope.
As I said before, it is my opinion that unfunded mandates are discretionary and avoidable in this law rather than inherent and mandatory.
JoAnne, I hope you're right.
JoAnne, I hope you're right. You and I agree on the proper course to take, we only disagree on the likelihood of the right thing happening.