Michigan Votes

2003 Senate Bill 509 (Impose "driver responsibility fees" )

Public Act 165 of 2003

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Jud Gilbert on May 21, 2003, to assess an annual $100 driver responsibility fee (or "bad driver fee") on individuals who accumulate seven or more points on their driving record within a two-year period. For each additional point above this amount an additional fee of $50 would be assessed. Higher fees would be assessed for certain very serious driving infractions, such as manslaughter, drunk driving, or fleeing police. In addition, a motorist who fails to produce his or her proof of insurance form when requested by a police officer would be assessed $300. The proposed fees would go to the state general fund, and are expected to generate approximately $70 million a year.
    • Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee on May 21, 2003.
      • Reported in the Senate on May 27, 2003.
      • Amendment offered in the Senate on May 28, 2003, to incorporate technical wording changes which clarify but do not affect the substance of the bill as previously described. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on May 28, 2003.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Burton Leland on June 3, 2003, to allow a person who has four or more points on their driving record, and who gets a ticket that would add three points and thereby trigger the new fines proposed by the bill, to agree to undergo a driver improvement course. Completion of the course would cause the points to be waived, and the proposed new fines avoided. An individual would be allowed to choose this option only one time. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 3, 2003.
  • Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on June 3, 2003, to assess an annual $100 driver responsibility fee on individuals who accumulates seven or more points on their driving record within a two-year period. For each additional point above this amount an additional fee of $50 would be assessed. Higher fees would be assessed for certain very serious driving infractions, such as manslaughter, drunk driving, or fleeing police. In addition, a motorist who fails to produce his or her proof of insurance form when requested by a police officer would be assessed $300. The bill also would allow a person who has four or more points on their driving record, and who gets a ticket that would add three points and thereby trigger the new fines, the option to agree to undergo a driver improvement course. Completion of the course would cause the points to be waived, and the proposed new fines avoided. An individual would only be allowed to choose this option one time. This is one of many bills authorizing tax and fee increases proposed to close a gap between state spending and expected revenue. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the House on June 3, 2003.
    • Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on June 3, 2003.
    • Reported in the House on June 10, 2003, recommended that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
    • Referred to the House Transportation Committee on June 10, 2003.
    • Reported in the House on June 26, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on July 2, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which would use $6.3 million of the new fees to pay local governments for fire protection services provided to state buildings. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on July 2, 2003.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Gene DeRossett on July 2, 2003, to establish that the bill will go into effect on Oct. 1, 2003 if passed. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on July 2, 2003.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Mike Nofs on July 2, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which would use $3 million of the new fees to pay local governments for fire protection services provided to state buildings once $65 million total had been generated, and additional money for this purpose after $100 million in fees had been taken. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on July 2, 2003.
  • Passed in the House (64 to 45) on July 2, 2003, to assess an annual $100 driver responsibility fee on individuals who accumulates seven or more points on their driving record within a two-year period. For each additional point above this amount an additional fee of $50 would be assessed. Higher fees would be assessed for certain very serious driving infractions, such as manslaughter, drunk driving, or fleeing police. In addition, a motorist who fails to produce his or her proof of insurance form when requested by a police officer would be assessed $300. This is one of many bills authorizing tax and fee increases proposed to close a gap between state spending and expected revenue. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the Senate on July 3, 2003.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Burton Leland on July 15, 2003, to allow a person who has four or more points on their driving record, and who gets a ticket that would add three points and thereby trigger the new fines proposed by the bill, to agree to undergo a driver improvement course. Completion of the course would cause the points to be waived, and the proposed new fines avoided. An individual would be allowed to choose this option only one time. The amendment failed in the Senate (14 to 21) on July 15, 2003. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Jud Gilbert on July 15, 2003, to add an assessment for driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on July 15, 2003.
  • Passed in the Senate (32 to 4) on July 15, 2003, to concur with the House version of the bill, which does not include the provision allowing a driver subject to the fees the option to choose to undergo a driver improvement course to avoid them. The House version also reserves some of the fee revenue from the fees to pay local governments for fire protection services provided to state buildings. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the House on July 15, 2003.
  • Passed in the House (67 to 40) on July 16, 2003, to concur with an amended Senate-passed version of the bill, which adds an assessment for driving under the influence of a controlled substance. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on August 13, 2003.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Jud Gilbert on May 21, 2003. Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on June 3, 2003. New Comment

1) move [by Anonymous Citizen on July 9, 2008]
Do not like it do something about it. Thats why I do not vote so I tell myself not to complain
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Thank You [by Anonymous Citizen on July 9, 2008]
for not voting. If we could get more people to take themselves out of the voting pool we would be alot better off.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Yup, take the grandpa bubbas like you out of the voting pool [by Anonymous Citizen on July 9, 2008]
But this is America. So vote away.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Driver Responsibility Fee [by Anonymous Citizen on June 17, 2008]
Agree with most posting. Until this law is repealed, I will vote against all incumbent elected officials and vote no on any and all requests for tax increases. My current job allows me to work in Michigan and Ohio. I am strongly considering removing my family from this State. With Granholm, Kwame and the auto industry I feel like we are riding on the Titanic.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) broke [by Anonymous Citizen on May 12, 2008]
I think we need to fill a class action law suit aginst the state for conspricy.Laws are made to punish those who brake them, Not to generate money for over spending govenment rich who do valiu a dollor.Ive been without a drivers lic. for over 11 yrs. no permit for work, Ive went from making 70,000 a year to 4,000.My plan is to move out of this money sucking state.UNLESS, the people want to band together and fight.Im ready!
Reply New Comment

Line

6) that's some s*** [by Anonymous Citizen on April 14, 2008]
I think this is a bunch of s***. I have young kids at home. The state gave me this fee. Then took my driving privledge away to. This is a joke for the gov. to make more money. People don't care if they have the exta money to throw away. Others have better things to spend there money on. Not to say the courts took my baby cause I didn't have a licenses to take him back and forter to the doc.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) EXTORTION/ DRIVER RESPONIBILITY FEES [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2008]
I HAVE HAD TO MOVE OUT OF MICHIGAN AFTER BEING LAID OFF THREE TIMES AND HAVING TO PAY OVER $2500 DOLLARS IN DRIVER RESPONSIBILITY FEES. I AM NOT A BAD DRIVER BUT THESE FEES ALLOW FOR DRIVERS WITHOUT PROOF OF INURANCE TO BE PUNISHED WORST THEN THE REAL BAD DRIVERS.I HAVE NEVER HAD A SPEEDING TICKET OR ACCIDENT OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD CONSIDER ME A BAD DRIVER. I DIDNT HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY INSURANCE, TO RENEW MY TAGS, WHICH RESULTED IN ME GETTING PULLED OVER.I DONT EVEN HAVE ANY POINTS ON MY LICENSE. MY CAR WAS IMPOUNDED TWICE IN A MONTHS PERIOD, BY DETROIT POLICE, THE SAME COP STOPPED ME BOTH TIMES AND HE FELT SO BAD THAT HE GAVE ME AND MY SON A RIDE HOME. BOTH TIMES I WAS ON MY WAY TO SCHOOL. I HAVE HAD TO TAKE OUT A HIGH INTEREST PRIVATE STUDENT LOAN IN ORDER TO GET MY DRIVER LICENSE BACK. I HAVE BEEN PUNISHED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE AT LEAST 5 TIMES
1.) PAY IMPOUND FEES
2.)PAY ACTUAL TICKET
3.) PAY CITY REINSTATEMENT FEE
4.)PAY 1ST DRIVER RESPONSIBILITY FEE
5.) PAY 2ND YEAR DRIVER RESPONSIBILITY FEE
6.)PAY $125 REINSTATEMENT FEE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

DOES ANYONE THINK THAT IT IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH THIS CRAP, OR DO YOU CARE. WHY IS MICHIGAN PUSHING ITS CITIZENS TO OTHER STATES, WHEN THE STATE IS ALREADY STRUGGLING.

Reply New Comment

Line

8) yes!! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 26, 2008]
YOU ARE VERY RIGHT...THIS IS JUST A WAY FOR THE STATE TO MAKER MORE MONEY ..SO THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE MIDDLE CLASS DIMINISHES IN FRONT OF OUR EYES...ITS BULLS*** HONESTLY..I FEEL BAD FOR PPL LIKE YOU AND ALOT OF OTHERS WHO HAVE TO BE PUNISHED THIS WAY..ITS HARD ENOUGH TRYING TO GET BY IN THIS DAY AND AGE NOT TO MENTION WHEN YOU DO GET PULLED OVER YOU GET TICKETS AND FEES YOU HAVE TO PAY ALREADY WHY ARE WE PAYING EXTRA "WHY" AND WHY ARENT PEOPLE TRYING TO FIGHT THIS ...THAT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO ON THE INTERNET TODAY IWAS ACTUALLY JUSST SEARCHING THE WEB TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS ANY CASES AGIANST DRIVERS RES. FEE ...I TOO HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT I WAS LAID OFF LAST YEAR AND LOST THE INSURANCE ON MY VEHICLE I DIDNT HAVE ANY MONEY TO PAY IT(I AM A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN ITS NOT RIGHT)..AND WITH MY LUCK I WAS PULLED OVER 2 TIMES AND NOW GOING THROUGH MY SECOND ROUND WITH THIS CRAP...I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I RIGHT THERE WITH YOU ON THAT...OUR STATES GOING TO CRAP ..THE FUTURE IS A SCARY THING TO THINK ABOUT!!! _
Reply New Comment

Line

9) class action............ [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2008]
I am a school bus driver and work for my county as a snow plow driver. I am furios with the State concerning this bill. I recieved a ticket in East Lansing near the Breslin center for doing 30 in a 25 mph zone(speed trap, I was visiting the MSU campus for a basketball tournament and didn't notice any signs posted for a speed reduction, in fact I was last in a line of 5 cars traveling the same speed. The ticket was $135 which doubled to $270 because payment was not recievd in the alloted time, btw I had trouble coming up with the $135 but who gives a crap right? anyhow the court wrote me explaining they would take the money from my state tax refund, cool with me, they held it up but I guess the process didn't go as fast as they wanted so someone decided to go ahead and suspend my license, I never recieved a letter from the state saying it was suspended."here comes the good part" a police officer from the neighboring township waited apx. 7 houses from my residence at a convenience store, allowed me to pass then got behind me and stopped me, informed me that I "fit the description of the owner of the car whos license was suspened", got the ticket for dwls paid the $270 + $150 in court fees 2 points = speeding ticket, 2 points = dwls, then recieved a letter from the state $500 in 30 days for driver responsibility and additional $500 this time next year on top of all that insurace for my vehicles went up. All tha to say this I had 0 points prior now 2+2+(3) for driver responsibility = 7 will likely loose both jobs because 7 is the limit at both, $1420 = tickets, fees & fines, insurance dramatically increased. What can I do?
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Just a way to get money [by Anonymous Citizen on March 14, 2008]
Who new this law existed? What is totally nuts is that by the fee schedule, it cost more and you are apparently more dangerous if you don't have proof of insurance, than if you speed 4 times, fail to yield 4 times, run a stop sign 3 times! I don't know anyone that has ever been killed by not having proof of insurance. It has nothing to do with driving ability. This must is nuts!
Reply New Comment

Line

11) state sponsored extortion [by Anonymous Citizen on March 21, 2008]
I had a traffic violation while driving through New York. I was being careless and I have no problem paying the fine to the state of New York. I didn't know that I would be fined again by Michigan for committing a traffic violation in another state. Now I have to pay this bullshit 150 dollars or getting my licence suspended. I am getting fined twice for the same offense. Another thing I find interesting is that they made a point about paying another 125 dollars if you do not pay the fine by its due date, but I stared over the letter front and back and could not find a due date anywhere. I guess the state mofia wants to leave room to accuse you of being late no matter when you send in the payment. This law is just extortion in disguise, pay us money or something bad will happen to you.

Reply New Comment

Line

12) this law blows [by MAD AS HELL on March 1, 2008]
I don't care who knows who I am, In fact my name Is byron Marr jr from newaygo michigan and the michigan dept of treasury sent the paper work to an address that i had not lived at for 2 1/2 years and took my lic because they said they had not heard back from me. Now how is it that i should have to pay for there mistake?they cliam that they did not have my proper address, but yet when it came time to steal my lic they had the correct one than. So for all of you out there who have fines to pay if they don't have your correct address they will stael your lic too
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Happened to me too [by Anonymous Citizen on March 10, 2008]
I moved and called the court house with my correct address and even spelled it to them well they weren't listening and spelled the street name wrong my court date went to another address and I was arressted for it!!!!! Then I had to pay major fines not to mention the money it took to bail me out of jail!!! FUCK MICHIGAN!!!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

14) State Workers [by Anonymous Citizen on March 11, 2008]
aren't that sharp....You should have spelled it r e a l l y S l o w....
Reply New Comment

Line

15) this law blows [by MAD AS HELL on March 1, 2008]
I don't care who knows who I am, In fact my name Is byron Marr jr from newaygo michigan and the michigan dept of treasury sent the paper work to an address that i had not lived at for 2 1/2 years and took my lic because they said they had not heard back from me. Now how is it that i should have to pay for there mistake?they cliam that they did not have my proper address, but yet when it came time to steal my lic they had the correct one than. So for all of you out there who have fines to pay if they don't have your correct address they will stael your lic too
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Best of luck [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2008]
I hope you win the lawsuit! That why people leave this state! Property tax pop ups, estate taxes. All this state does is screw the working person into destitution! And people are like wilderbeasts! They just don't give a rip. Its amazing how a wilderbeast can watch a lion tear to shreads is fellow wilderbeast and keep eating the grass like nothing is happening. As long as it aint them. Thats how the taxpayers in Michgian are. NARCISSITIC! They are like machines! they just don't care.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Group as YET??? [by maddiemae414 on February 15, 2008]
Is there a group as yet that has filed with the Federal Govt a law suit on behalf of the citizens that believe that their rights have been violated? If not, should we the concerned not do so and possibly begin a web site to organize the entire issue? Sitting still and bitching will do nothing but raise blood pressures and send individuals to jail who should not be there. I have not and have not researched what occured this past year with the repeal process.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Jenny must go [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2008]
Recall the bitch.

Reply New Comment

Line

19) Its Time! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2008]
It is time to put the citizens back in the loop.
I an a certified Mechanic/Automotive Technician. I have repeatedly been turned down for work because of my Driving history. My license is currently suspended for DRF's. When they first suspended my License. I refused to pay the fee. So I moved to Ohio. Ohio will not issue a license if you are suspended in another state. And was pulled over and fined in both Ohio and Michigan! This is complete nonsense. These lazy ass politicians have been trying to replace the revenue that the DRF has generated and cannot figure out where they will get the money to "BALANCE THE BUDGET" without it. Meanwhile, the citizens that are stuck with this Unconstitutional fines and fees.
The Supreme court has ruled numorous times that:
Removings a persons right and replacing it with a privaledge is against the constitution. We are expieriencing the vary things that our forefathers escaped other countries for. Taxation without representation, and unwanted police powers. Forcing us into contracts that are unlawfull. And rightously imprisoning the citizens for thier own hidden agendas. Along with a miriad of others.
We need to put the so called legislators in thier place. We are the masters and THEY are the servants. And the only way WE can restore power to the people, is to fight them on their own battlfield.
A class action lawsuit is going to be filed with the Federal Supreme court. Against the State of Michigan, and the legislators that proposed, endorsed, and vote for this illegal "MOTOR VEHICHLE CODE". To challenge the constituionality of these crimes against the citizens. The Law suit will be asking for approximately 65 million dollars to be paid to the citizens EVERY TWO YEARS. The State has violated our rights by ignorance. And they need to be held accountable for their actions.

I have heard that there is already a lawyer that has tried to take this action against the state. HE IS FAILING TO FOLLOW UP! Or he has been PAID OFF, or possibly even eliminated. Time is of the essence. We have been fleaced for far to long. Judging from the reaction to this piece of junk legislature. The people are in need of satisfaction. And are DEMANDING results now! The battlefield needs to be moved to the court rooms, and RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE REINSTATED! A recall of the legislators, and the governer, along with the Secretary of State herself. Mrs Terry Lynn Land (Who was just a clerk for the Friend of the Court in Kent County just ten short years ago.) MUST be implimented Now.

We are tired, suppressed, poor and hungry. And sick of the half asses trying to find new ways to screw us. Our demands Must be met. Remove the Code, repeal the law NOW!
Reply New Comment

Line

20) Wow [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2008]
Maybe people should learn to spell before
ranting on and on. Makes you look bad
Reply New Comment

Line

21) spelling [by Anonymous Citizen on July 7, 2008]
after reading someone pouring out there heart the only thing you have to say is spelling wrong what is wrong with you??

Reply New Comment

Line

22) Vagrancy [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2008]
Everybody will one day not be able to pay everthing! We will be homeless, sitting in and out of jails for not paying fines etc.
This kind of legislation is going in the wrong direction.
Reply New Comment

Line

23) Leaving the state [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2008]
Thats why people are leaving the state. No Jobs. Teachers and administrators and judges making $100,000 dollars a year plus though
Reply New Comment

Line

24) im glad to see there are other people out there who have the same problem! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 2, 2008]
i am another citizen of michigan who also has piled up fines and fees. The first fee was for no proof of insurance, in december of 06(i was driving my moms car and was totally unaware that the car didnt have insurance) $200 something dollar ticket and a $200 driver responsibility fee, i had paid the $200 to the secretary of state thinking that my ticket was all paid for. In february of 07 my grandma (who i lived with and was pretty much supported by) passed away. Apparently i recieved a letter telling me that my license was suspended.. but i had never recieved a letter because i had to move. In July of 07 i had gotten pulled over for speeding where i was slammed with another $300 for court and the ticket fine and another $500 for the driver responsibily fee. I am 19 years old and now live with my brother, i go to school and work 2 jobs... i pay $250 a month to keep a car that i cant even drive... another $365 for insurance.. because i have such a bad driving record and about $35 a week in gas money to have people drive me back and forth all over the place. Do they understand that i am only 19, most full grown adults i know wouldnt be able to just pull this kind of money out of no where. I asked about a work permit like to drive to and from work only but they cant do that because i just have to pay a fee... i didnt commit a crime... WOW. thats awesome that they will give a criminal the privalege to drive or even someone who has had like 3 drunk driving offenses the chance to drive again but they wont let someone who barely broke the law have a temporary or restricted license.

Man how i wish i could jsut get out of the stupid state but how can i save to do that when every ounce of money i have goes right to the enemy.
i am soooo TRAPPED!!
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Leave Michigan [by Anonymous Citizen on December 25, 2007]
We too were hit with this unconstitutional fine . . . taxation without representation. We not only left the state of Michigan, we left the United States. I'll take my chances in a third world country any day over a country ruled by idiots. Unfortunately, this is not an option for most people but if I would of stayed in the USA for one more minute, I would have probably "gone postal" at the DMV.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) government is out of control [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2008]
well put friend... this country is becoming a laughing stock of the world. The world policing and war we force others to believe in by creating false evidence... what do you expect when we leave our internal economy, people, and comcentrate on external war games so we can test our new soldier toys, this is the result.. econony collapses, dollar is reduced to practically Pesos, and then they try to fine the average joe to compensate for their shortcomings.
Our leader is an idiot and credit to you, ther is much better standard of living in other countries, europe, south america, even middle east to a certain extent. Just whatever you think about this government, is one thing, but dont think "freedom" and "for the people byt the people" crap... illusional perception..
Reply New Comment

Line

27) drivers fees [by Anonymous Citizen on December 21, 2007]
this is illegal and unconstitutional granholm you are breaking the law yourself wheres the real police when you need them!
Reply New Comment

Line

28) Sick of it [by Anonymous Citizen on December 14, 2007]
It causes a HUGE Downward SPIRAL.. do you realize how many people this causes grief? OBVIOUSLY if someone can NOT AFFORD INSURANCE proof in the first place.. they will not be able to afford these FEES AND FINES on top of the TICKETS THEY PAY.. This is DOUBLE JEOPARDY>> IT's a VIOLATION OF RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This causes a huge problem what was granholm thinking? No wonder no one in MI has a job.. they have no LICENSE TO GET THEM THERE>!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

29) Respect for the police? [by Anonymous Citizen on November 7, 2007]
I try, but when they are part of the extrotion program happening nation wide, they are part of the problem. When they can sign their name to you being fired from your job for having three tickets in three years, they they too should have people filming them and catching them at the same basic infractions they impose on everyone else. Today everyone is a criminal in their scheme they impose on everyone else. Respect works both way's and it seems to me, a majority of police no longer have any respect for their fellow America, we are all the terrorist to them and they can treat us like scum. The brotherhood is becoming nothing less then clan of extortion and out of control power.
Taze old people, because "she had a hammer" 5 / 200 lb men can't deal with a woman with a hammer without sending 5000 volts into her. Total whimps!
Reply New Comment

Line

30) 14 year old driver [by Anonymous Citizen on September 19, 2007]
If a 14 year flee's the police and has no license, what would would the fees for that be? Is that fair being that he cant even obtain a license or driving record yet?
Reply New Comment

Line

31) TX DRP Surcharge Petition [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
I have dedicated many months of my time to prepare a report of sorts on the DRP. What I have discovered is that the entire fate of Texas is connected to the Surcharge Program. This is because the money from the Unconstitutional program is earmarked for the Tran-Texas Corridor, which is a strategic segment of what is to become a Super Corridor that spans the entire North American Continent.

The state is suspending people's license over not paying an excessive surcharge fee that is in addition to what you agree to in court. What's more is the money is going to pay for the Corridor projects, without consent or knowledge or the People or Congress! I believe that spreading the word would enable individuals to better deal with the negative effects that the TX DRP has had on their lives, as well as have a say in their own future.

TX DRP Surcharge Petition
www.petitiononline.com/TXDRP07/petition.html

Have you heard of this yet??
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/nasco.jpg


Reply New Comment

Line

32) Wow [by Anonymous Citizen on May 18, 2007]
I was born and raised in Michigan, went to MSU, then moved to Chicago for a better life where I practice law and make a decent living. My brother, who just graduated from CMU, is following the same route. He was hit with this ridiculous Driver's Responsibility law and has paid in excess of $1900 to the State of Michigan, partly because he tried to appeal the fine. Great job Michigan Legislature and Granholm! Your economy is in the toilet, unemployment is skyrocketing, so go ahead and make up the revenue loss by raping your very own citizens through outlandish fines when they need help the most. Pathetic!
Reply New Comment

Line

33) well put angel [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2008]
i applause you for your comment.. this shit state has taken the liberty of sending itself to the bottom of the list in every category... jobs are down, companies are leaving this state, and if they stay in 12 months their doors are closed anyway. WE are importing other states and countries (canada) garbages, raising taxes, finding every oportunity to thumb dwon our own citizens by these driver resposibility fees which is the lowest of the low. At this point i expect more out of a monkey than i do from trader Granholm.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) WOW II [by Anonymous Citizen on December 16, 2007]
My son too was hit with these outrageous fees. Started with East Lansing and of course they know your vehicle so every chance they get, he would be stopped again. Issued more tickets for suspended license because he could not pay the original $500 that had increased to $1500. His responsibility fees are approximately $4500 now. He moved away from his home state of Michigan to Rockford, IL. Frustrated, angry and hating the place where he was born and raised. Michigan, the terrorize your citizens State. He cannot get a license in IL, but at least he can travel by train and feel good about going to work, instead of being terrified of being stopped.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) Not fines [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2007]
The DRAct is A TAX assetment not a fine, If it were a fine then it would be against the 5th admendment, I lost my job driving new cars, and with a long histroy of priors, even though at one time they were wiped clean, but now I guess they can bring them back to further deny me my right to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,,,????BS... I now live off the taxpayers with SSI and foodstamps,,,filed bankrupcy on 4 credit cards and now I am losing my house though forclosure. No longer can hunt fish or even operate a boat because of this insane law. Bye granny hole next time around you can't possibly keep winning Are they that many stupid people in Michigan?
Reply New Comment

Line

36) Bill 4006 repeal bad driver fee, tom pearce [by Anonymous Citizen on April 22, 2007]
Continuing to post on this bill will get you nowhere. It's been passed.

All you can do now is focus your attention to bill 4006 by Bruce Caswell and protest to Rep. Tom Pearce to get this bill passed to repeal this goddamn asinine law.

Divert your browser to link michiganvotes.org/2007-HB-4006

and focus all your fury and outrage at Tom Pearce to get moving on repealing the "bad driver" TAX.

Rep. Tom Pearce, Kent county, ROCKFORD, House Transportation committee
Phone: Phone: 1-888-414-3684 - (517) 373-0218
Reply New Comment

Line

37) Driver Responsibility Hurts Those who Need Help [by Anonymous Citizen on August 14, 2007]
This driver responsibility fee takes people who have worked hard to get back on their feet by going through rehab and medical treatments and knocks them back off their feet. Some never recover enough to get their heads above water. Good job Mr Pierce et all. I hope you have a family member that suffers from alcholism and stuggles to get back on their feet after rehab. Or perhaps you have big buck to help them?
Reply New Comment

Line

38) refunds? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2007]
Yea If they repeal it, will they be any refunds to those who paid???????
Reply New Comment

Line

39) not a responsibility fee-it's fraud [by Anonymous Citizen on April 21, 2007]
Drivers lose the right to drive when they accumulate so many points. Any good driver takes this punishment seriously and tries to get his points reduced....by driving more responsibly. He pays his ticket and possibly drives on a restricted license. He HAS been fined and punished. Extreme and rediculous extra fees only makes the driver feel unjustly punished and mad. So..............the driver can"t and/or won't pay the extra fees and drives illegally so he can get to work and have money to live. What is wrong....the driver or the responsibility fee.
Reply New Comment

Line

40) Responsibility fortune for others [by Anonymous Citizen on April 21, 2007]
Have you gotten anywhere fighting this law? It is truly ridiculous!My son's "Responsibility" fine has tripled since he can not, and doesn't want to pay it.Please let me know if there's anything to be done. mgsm1201@aol.com
Reply New Comment

Line

41) The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS RULED!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 14, 2007]
Right to Travel


DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) reply [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2007]
Nice facts presented BUT WHO"S LISTENING?????
I couldn't even get insurance for my sailboat because of this law, can't operate a ATV or snowmobile..this just sucks
Reply New Comment

Line

43) do you REALLY [by Anonymous Citizen on April 14, 2007]
think that the state of michigan gives a flying rat's ass about the supreme court?

the state has trampled on peoples rights for over 170 years, why should they think about stopping now?


Reply New Comment

Line

44) after KATRINA and the waters went down... [by suppressed american on April 8, 2007]
one of the networks showed a parish that went bankrupt because ther wasn't enough people to arrest or fine for what ever reason. hence, NO REVENUE !!

which enforces the fact that it is not FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS that these laws are on the books. a person with any small amount of brains would be able to figure that out.

the state of the state of michiganistan is due to the irresponsablity of our elected officials.

rather than premote a good busniess enviroment, these NO-IT-ALLS in lansing keep adding more and more restrictive measures for busniess to surrive. it doesn't take a collage idiot to realize why busniesses are leaving michiganistan.

now with our wonderful governor again entrenched for another four years. it wil be more song and dance. more people and busniesses will be moving, if only over the border. be it indiana, ohio, illinois, even wiscosin. it is still more busniess savy to get the tax credits outside the state than hang around here.

you CAN NOT TAX A BUSNIESS OR A STATE INTO PROSPARITY !!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

45) which parish is that? [by crazycajun on April 8, 2007]
the parishes down there (except parts of orleans parish, which is STILL WAITING FOR FEDERAL AID) are recovering nicely without federal aid.

the big money maker is tourism. they held TWO mardi gras' since the storm. along with a couple of college seasons, and a WINNING SAINTS SEASON since the storm.

all without federal aid.

businesses are open, people who OWN their homes are rebuilding, and the ones they show on the news are SECTION 8.

tell me that there isn't a liberal bias to the news media.
Reply New Comment

Line

46) DON'T PAY IT [by Anonymous Citizen on February 6, 2007]
DON'T PAY IT..The only thing we can do as American citizens is fight for what we believe in, and the only way we can do that! is to do it together.. Dont pay these Unconstitutional fees..It will eventually effect the Michigan Government in big ways and they will have to change the way they do business..The young people of this country have to stand up for themselves, I don't see the youth of America standing up for themselves like they did in the past. The youth are the future and are the ones that can shape the future.. I'm willing to get people together on this Issue and many other issues that effect are future..I believe in protests on all issues, not just war.
Reply New Comment

Line

47) Don't pay= Frozen assets [by Anonymous Citizen on August 27, 2007]
If you don't pay your fine they will freeze your bank account and garnish your wages. Even if there is only a few bucks in your account and you make less than $70 a week. I know from experience.
Reply New Comment

Line

48) You Are So Right [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2007]
except that the sheeple don't have the kahunas to stand up anymore. Can you imagine this kind of thing happening in 1950?
Reply New Comment

Line

49) Bill of Right Violation [by dudley on February 4, 2007]
The Driver Responsibilty ACT of 2003 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL And there is No two ways about. As for its penalizes Michigan drivers TWICE THRICE and more, for the same crime. In direct violation of The Fifth admendment as to wit "Nor shall any person be subject foe same offense to be twice put in jeopardy, etc etc".This statement, written in the blood of the people who uphold the constitution of the United States, SHOULD speak for itself, But somehow in today PC world, run by the DEMOCRAPS,The constitution only applies in certain instances and they strive to overlook the Constitution to their advantage, just by saying 'THIS IS LAW AND YOU WILL ADIBED BY IT OR ELSE!'...Extortion by the Government?
So they Hide this act in the tax laws as an assessment, which allows it to survive. It serves no propose but to ruin the lives of poverty stricken offenders, Such as I. My hopes of ever driving again are nil-zero. So I am forced to operate as an Illegal. This act has made me lose my job as an Automobile chauffeur for New car delivery. A job I will never get to hold ever again because of the Insurance restrictions. AS a disabled Vietnam Veteran on a VA pension of $910 a month and living expenses and bills of $1040 per month, Is causing a great deal of stress and has ignited the PTSD which was under control by constant counseling and medications.
The ACT was extorted upon Michigan by the adulterous, ignorant President Clinton, by threats of cutting off Federal Highway funding for states who wouldn't comply with enacting simular legislations. With tougher liquor law violations be enacted currently, you might as well bring back PROHIBITION I am sure the taxpapers could be made to pay HIGHER taxes to offset the lose of revenue.. Let's not forget the jobs lost, and the efffect thereof. And that's all I gots to say about DAT!
Reply New Comment

Line

50) Illegal tax on the poor [by Anonymous Citizen on September 27, 2007]
Just like the previous veteran with PTSD I am prevented from driving to my volunteer job with the West Bloomfied school system because there is no public transportation, and the secretary of state demands $3000+.
Who is really losing here. I got plenty of time and health and can now only watch Oprah in the afternoon instead of helping the community.
Brilliant plan Michigan
Reply New Comment

Line

51) To: democrap hater [by Anonymous Citizen on September 11, 2007]
Although i agree with the fact that DRF is un constitutional. it was perposed by a republican and Clinton can not cut amyones funding. The legislative brance writes the budget..... Learn before you accuse. If we don't want to have unfair laws , we need to know who has the power to starte the change in goverment. SIGN THE PETITION google it sign it and have alll your voter friends sign it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

52) I don't know who you are but I am with you [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
Our government has overstepped it's designed purpose. When there are people such as yourself and me and thousands of others who are saying the same thing and feeling the same way...and our government is not representing nor protecting it's citizens from harm, then it is time for such people to be relieved of their duty. For the people by the people....or so it says....these laws are not for the people...
I am so sorry your life was so adversely effected by the powers that be.
Where are the organizations put in place to rectify this horrendous situation?
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."
Reply New Comment

Line

53) update [by dudley on June 5, 2007]
Well its June and still I can't drive a car now I can't get Insurance for my sailboat becuase I don't have a valid Michigan DL?????????
Reply New Comment

Line

54) see ya! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2007]
do you know why they are fixing michigan roads???....so people can get out!!!!!!!....see ya!
Reply New Comment

Line

55) Get out [by Anonymous Citizen on August 27, 2007]
I'm right behind you. In 23 months I will have my degree and f--k Michigan.
Reply New Comment

Line

56) pissed off tax payer [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2006]
this is a over taxing if the fines are payed the goverment doesn't have the right to impose more money doesn't that fall under double jeperdy clause if the goverment has to bleed us go fuck off
Reply New Comment

Line

57) I Agree.. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2006]
Jenny figures that with this stupid law she can reach into the taxpayers pockets once again.
Once you pay your debt it should be done. Unfortunatly Jenny on the block has destroyed the Michiganistan economy so she needs to take more of OUR MONEY. I'm leaving this socialist paradise as soon as I can.
Reply New Comment

Line

58) POOR MANS Tax [by Anonymous Citizen on September 27, 2005]
Jennifer Granholm and her scared to death lackeys in congress who let this stuff pass. They pass a law that forces people to pay a fine on top of a fine that you got because you dont have insurance. I DONT BELIEVE IN TAKING A HANDOUT...so I pay all my taxes and then because of all the JOBS our great governor has ran out of the state, I lose my job and cant afford insurance, it was a simple choice, FOOD for my family or Insurance, you pick. Then just as I was beginning to get back on my feet I get stoped while driving to work and have to pay 320.00 dollars (didnt even fight it just payed my fine) then I get this letter in the mail saying hey you know what sir, we want our cut now....OR we are going to suspend your liscence, GREAT IDEA THERE JENNIFER! Now Im have a suspeneded Liscence and wont be able to work, without risking another one of these taxes, because fact is I DONT HAVE THE MONEY TO PUT INSURANCE ON MY CAR PAY 320 bux in fines and then pay another 200 bux all in the same 30 day period, thats on top on my mortgage....I SWEAR YOUR A GENIUS, Like I said I wont take a handout call it pride or stupidity but I WORK for my money only to see this state take it all.

This law does nothing to effect the very wealthy, TAXES and thats what this is, should effect everyone not just the poor who cant afford to pay them...ILL PAY MY INCOME TAXES BUT ALL THESE HIDDEN TAXES, disquised as LAWS, HAVE GOT TO GO!
Reply New Comment

Line

59) here here [by dudley on February 4, 2007]
Don't forget that it was Clinton the adulterous, who force states to enact such legislations, or lose their Federal Highway funding. EXTORTION?? LIES?
Reply New Comment

Line

60) CLINTON [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
ALSO IMPOSED THE .08 REGULATION ON RESPONSIBLE DRINKERS. Since he was not creating enough revenue through arresting truly irresponsible drinkers he thought it would be more fun to go along with including law abiding citizens. Neat.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."
Reply New Comment

Line

61) This a Tax [by Anonymous Citizen on June 17, 2004]
As a Districts Court Adminsitrator told me "Since the imposed fees go directly to the States general fund and are imposed by the State and not the Secretary of State, this is a tax and therefore we have Taxation without representation. This law has yet to be challenged and needs to be.

The intent of the law was to deter dangerous drivers and save lives. There is no distinction between drivers who have suspended licences because of bad driving and those who've had them suspended for other issues (ei. child support, unpaid fines). State will not handle the matter since it's a relative boon with estimates that it could generate $125 million* (* From the Detroit News).

Please Post a follow up if you've been Taxed by this new law.
Reply New Comment

Line

62) This is about revenue, not safety [by Anonymous Citizen on June 18, 2004]
The legislative record is clear: "Safety" was just the skimpiest fig leaf held over this new tax. In the spring of 2003 the Senate declined to adopt fee and tax hikes requested by the governor, and lacked the will to cut government spending. This was offered as a substitute revenue source. Today, the game in Lansing is to add points to what previously were "no points" offenses - the better to push drivers over this bill's threshhold. (Enter the keywords "driver" and "points" on this site to view bills.)
Reply New Comment

Line

63) And [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2005]
who wants to bet they vote themselves raises with this new levy.
Reply New Comment

Line

64) No Proof vs. No Insurance [by Anonymous Citizen on March 13, 2004]
There better be a way for people already caught in this trap ($300 for No Proof of Insurance) to be forgiven this burden after the amendment SB1086 passes. I pay my insurance by autopay on a credit card & did not receive PROOF in mail. Stop the insanity. Thank God for Republican Senator Sanborn and the like.
Reply New Comment

Line

65) What's to keep the government from doing it again? [by brianwrest on February 26, 2004]
Basically nothing! That is unless we as people quit our jobs and become our own watchdogs watching over our representatives and senators.

Wait...perhaps that's the best thing to do. THEN they wouldn't receive their overbudgeted payrolls as there would be less tax that is being afforded by the people.

I was hit by this "fee" as a result of a no-proof of insurance (new car delivered to me by the dealer who neglected to include the copy of insurance faxed to him as well as the registration).

This is outrageous! I not only had to pay nearly $100 to the city of Berkely for the fine (no fees were assessed because I produced proof THE NEXT DAY). I believe I'm being tried twice for the same crime!

I certainly will do my best to make certain people know about this bill/law, who initiated it, and who voted in favor of it.
Reply New Comment

Line

66) quit??? [by crazycajun on May 10, 2006]
don't quit your job, just spend an hour a day keeping track of what your government is up to. if everybody did that, the legislators wouldn't DARE do anything out of line.

keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Reply New Comment

Line

67) Nothing like [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2005]
paying your dues to the county where the offense was made just to have the state decide they get a cut too. They're really overstepping their bounds with this one. Yeah, this bill might be good for safety if it only included penalties for those who drive drunk or commit vehicular manslaughter, but that doesn't happen frequently enough to fix the budget deficit. Hence all the other BS levies included under the guise of protecting all of us ignorant sheep.
Reply New Comment

Line

68) SCARY [by Anonymous Citizen on March 30, 2007]
this scares me , our country has
started to run more and more on fear
and Safty, if that alone dosnt make you feel
a bit paranoid already ....
wont be long before we have curfews
for safty and walls around the citys
because its safter
ahh immigne a world where....
Reply New Comment

Line

69) SCARY is the right word [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
It is scary when we have seat belts in our car and it is not an option whether or not we can use them. Soon it will be, we have locks on our doors and unless we lock them, we will get a fine. Then they should have a law that says, you must look into your rear view mirror at least every 15 minutes...or you will get a ticket. (Rear view mirrors and locks are important safety features.)
It is all about law and revenue, not about people, trust me. When you leave your house, you are risking a ticket writer pulling you over for something that he is trained to do and you are not trained to defend. From a tail light to five feet shy of twenty feet restriction parking near a cross walk..(these guys carry tape measures in their back pockets.
Don't expect justice or mercy. It is not in the manual.
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Taking sides [by Anonymous Citizen on November 18, 2003]
There are plenty of good drivers out there who have accumulated 7 points in 2 years as a fluke. There are also plenty of drivers out there who accumulate 7 points from minor infractions that don't even come close to warranting a revocation of a license.

While I appreciate the fact that a license is a privelege, I don't see how this law helps improve anything except he budget deficit... by taxing us more instead of trimming the pork.

And that teacher is an idiot. $1000 for disciplinary violations? My kid put blue streaks in her hair, got suspended for it, and now I'm supposed to pay $1000 to renew her license? Sure teachers are under paid and under respected but this one is not only overpaid, she's over employed.
Reply New Comment

Line

71) This sucks [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2005]
Why are schools more preoccupied with policing their students instead of educating them lately?
I agree this is a levy in disguise. Its ridiculous that you have to pay tickets, then pay tickets because you had to pay tickets. Not to mention the fines in the so called "Driver responsibility fee" are almost ALWAYS disproportionate in monetary value then the tickets that caused the fee to be applied in the first place.
A no opps ticket runs $125
no problem grin and bear it
but then to recieve a $300 for getting that $125 ticket, that's just ludicrous.
I'd like to know why the driver responsibility fee is so disproportionate to the tickets that trigger its application, really, i would.
Could it be that this is a tax in disguise? Could it?
Reply New Comment

Line

72) Any Money [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2007]
that the state takes from you is a tax. It's a price you have to pay the keepers so that you can live your life.
"Could it be that this is a tax in disguise?"
Reply New Comment

Line

73) Driving is a right, NOT just a privilege. [by spitfire on November 18, 2003]
Why do we let ourselves accept this "driving is a privilege, not a right" trap of the power-grabbing statist establishment? Who says it is not a right? Our system supposedly protects our right to pursue happiness, which means the right to earn a livelihood (among other things). Driving is a necessity to make a living in a modern society (notwithstanding the whines of the enviro-public transportation geeks). Therefore, driving is a right, not a privilege. Like any other right, if it is abused, it can be taken away, in the same way that felons give up the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms. But let us no longer accept like sheep this "driving is a privilege" mantra of big government's defenders.
Reply New Comment

Line

74) driving is a right [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
and you are correct. It is not a privelege and you are correct in stating that we have the RIGHT to pursue happiness and a vehicle is the means to be gainfully employed and be a viable citizen in our society. Our society is getting sick..or is sick as it deprives the means for people to go to work or to drive a car that they paid for with their hard earned money so that they can go to work and pay their bills and maintain their domain. One minute the government is screaming that they want to cut back on social programs and then in the next instance they are creating situations that force people to have a NEED FOR THESE PROGRAMS. Again...wake up America...the governement is taking away your rights and is ignoring what our constitution stands for.
The only thing that is a privelege is the one that allows politicians to represent us. If they do not represent us properly then we should remove THEM.

Reply New Comment

Line

75) Give Me A Break [by motorman on March 7, 2007]
As a Police Officer of 17 years in this state I have read all the postings on this issue. First to the person who feels that operating a motor vehicle is a right not a priveledge, I would imagne you are the type of parent ,after their child disregards a red light and causes an accident, wants to file a complaint against the officer and not discipline the child. I think alot of the fines are to high. But ANYONE who feels a driver that accumulates 7 points on their license in a short period of time just had a bout of bad luck, come and spend a day in my scout car, I can assure you luck has nothing to do with it! Dont blame bad or reckless driving habits on the officers that are writing the tickets. That is the typical attitude of society today, its always someone elses fault!
Reply New Comment

Line

76) I approve... but only for safety [by Anonymous Citizen on October 25, 2007]
Encouraging safe driving by penalizing unsafe drivers is okay by me. Autos are exceedingly dangerous when operated unsafely.

They're not exceedingly dangerous just because a driver hasn't paid his insurance or renewed his operator's permit.

Under this act, the safe driver with zero points on his record who forgets to renew his license pays the same fee as an unsafe irresponsible driver with 8 points.
Someone help me understand.
Reply New Comment

Line

77) to the policeman [by Anonymous Citizen on September 15, 2007]
You are living with blinders on. You do NOT have to have 7 points or more on your lic. to get these fines. My boyfriend got hit with it and he did not have 7 points on his lic.

Besides, the point you're missing is this: these people have already paid their fines and tickets. They've already paid their dues. Then the state comes along with a new law and wants MORE money. And there is NO WAY TO FIGHT it. It's just extortion and another way our freedoms and rights are being stripped away.

Are you so closed minded you can't see the other side????
Reply New Comment

Line

78) Driver Extortion Surcharges [by Anonymous Citizen on November 7, 2007]
Texas is running this raket at a rmapnt pase, just name it somthing that sounds fair and rape the people of everything thye can't get. Comply or don't go to work. I lost my job, no licence no job, you can't just go pay it either, you have to mail in the payment and wait for them to return it. This is a total window into power out of control. They can impose anything they want at a time when the cost of living is out of control, they finacialy rape everyone. They will keep pushing, they know what's on the horizon, and they can run for their rat hole like the cowards they are.
Reply New Comment

Line

79) YOU DESERVE AS MANY BREAKS [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
AS YOU GIVE. AND I CAN TELL BY YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO JUSTIFY YOUR EXISTENCE, TICKET WRITER. YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM NOT THE SOLUTION.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."
Reply New Comment

Line

80) You Are [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2007]
part of the problem. I have riden with cops. (My son-in-law) There is plenty to do without picking on younger drivers that don't know their rights. If you think that you should be punished twice for the same infraction then your mom called, something about spanking you one more time for that temper tantrum you threw back when you were 6.
Disgusting! And you guys wonder why you get no respect. You have let yourselves become a revenue generator instead of a police officer.
Reply New Comment

Line

81) Ticket Writers is a good description [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
What the police have become is ticket writers. Gone are the days when police used to be respected and looked upon kindly. At one time they were truly officers of the law and respected law abiding citizens...now they drive around with a pad to write tickets and must fill their quota. This is a fact and not fabrication. Accountability you say? How about imposing fines and restrictions on someone who has never been a drunkard or done anything immoral to get convicted on the judgement call of a kid who has not seen as much life as your own son? It is a scary society when the word of a police officer who lies on the stand to get a conviction holds more weight than someone who has supported our laws and our system for years.
This is the reality as Ayn Rand said:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."
Reply New Comment

Line

82) clinton (bill) imposed [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
a harsher restriction on blood alcohol level and then used the power of FEDERAL MONEY to force local authorities to do the same.

it's a common tactic.

the government want's a thing done (seat belts, smoking bans, helmet laws, lower alcohol levels, etc.) and threatens to remove federal funding for a particular project if the 'thing' isn't done in a timely manner.

our politicians, as accustomed as they are to nursing at the public teat, quickly and spinelessly act to keep the cash flowing.

our "having things" culture has erased our want and need for FREEDOM.

do we REALLY NEED to have the federal government involved in our schools, or can we manage to build a building and hire a compitant staff of teachers to teach our children ourselves?

do we REALLY NEED to have the federal government involved in our health care issues, or can we manage to only go to the doctor of our choice when we are REALLY SICK?

we've SEEN what bill came up with, now i'm worried what HILLARY will come up with when the democrats elect her president.


Reply New Comment

Line

83) this 'what do you have [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2007]
to hide' mentality, along with supporting 'punish you twice' legislation is the reason that the police in this state not only don't have the RESPECT of the citizens of this state, but they don't have the TRUST of the citizens of this state.

here, you DO have to worry about being stopped by the police if you are a law abiding citizen.

you ARE stopped by the police for no reason other than they want to see if they can raise a little more state revenue from you.

if an officer were suspended without pay for 45 days for every time he stopped a driver 'just to see if he's been drinking', or 'just to see whats in his trunk', then both of these injustices would probably stop.

police officers are NOT supposed to generate revenue for the state. thats not what fines are for.

fines are FIRST to punish, SECOND to PARTIALLY reimburse the political subdivision for expenses incurred in enforcement efforts, NOT the other way around, and CERTAINLY not to pay ALL the bills of the police.

not having all police officers trained equally only shows the contempt the state has for law enforcement.


Reply New Comment

Line

84) Excellent Post [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2007]
:-)
Reply New Comment

Line

85) Felons CAN Vote! [by Anonymous Citizen on December 3, 2003]
While I agree with spitfire's basic contention, it is a misconception that felons lose their right to vote. The only time they may not vote is when they are actually in jail. It is very sad to see so many people telling me "they can't vote" because of some silly consensual "crime" in their past.

THIS law is ridiculous--anyone who voted for it should be recalled or impeached. Here's what happened to one completely law-abiding motorist, and probably to all the rest of us:

"This is a heads up.....you no longer have the "month" of your tags
(registration) expiration to renew....they must be renewed on or before
the FIRST DAY of the MONTH they expire. (It's on the list below)

The Clerk handed me a little Xerox slip of paper that told me since I
didn't renew the tags on or before the 1st of Oct....I was being
charged $10.00 per tag late fees.

My comment was - this is really sneaky - The State should warn the
people the first year, then apply the fine the next year. I had no
knowledge of this fine, before I walked into the DMV. I had gotten a
request from the State to renew my tags by mail, and there was nothing
in that letter that implied there would be a fine. Didn't work, I got
fined $30.00. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 30, 2003 New Fees Target
Michigan Drivers

On October 1, new fees, fines and surcharges aimed at generating more
revenue, at the expense of Michigan motorists, goes into effect. Most
drivers don't realize the full extent of the penalties coming their way.

Public Act 165 has instituted new "Driver Responsibility Fees" which
amounts to raised fines and surcharges on traffic tickets. If you have
seven points on your drivers license, you will be paying $100 each year
for two years. And, you will be paying an additional $50 per point for
every point above seven. If you're stopped and you can't present proof
of insurance, you must pay a $300 fine, even if you later prove you do
have insurance. If you receive an Operating Under the Influence of
Liquor (OUIL), not only do you have to pay your fine, a new $40 surtax,
and license reinstatement fee, but you will also be getting a $1,000
bill each year for the next two years (courtesy of Governor Granholm and
Senator Gilbert).
This additional money will go to local governments and police, county
sheriffs, the State Police, the state General Fund and local fire
departments. This sets a dangerous precedent, as the agencies that issue
tickets will directly profit from them."
Reply New Comment

Line

86) Simple questions... [by bkelly on June 18, 2003]
What happens if they don't pay this?

Does the license get suspended?

Do we honestly believe that people that would get 7 points on their license in 2 years would be less likely or more likely to drive without a license?

Makes TOTAL sense...when you are in a state government facing a budget deficit.
Reply New Comment

Line

87) They can't control their spending [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2005]
So they extort from us instead. That's all this is. SOOO many of the offenses listed in the driver responsibility act are like the most common offenses one could make when driving. They would have to be, because the number of drunk driver's is only going to go so far. So on top of relatively reasonable ticket fees, they tack disproportionately punitive fees on to those ticket fees. Being ticketed for being ticketed. nice.
Reply New Comment

Line

88) Slick Smooth Insurance [by Anonymous Citizen on June 7, 2003]
This is probably being pushed by Insurance Companies. Under the deception of "We Care about kids" or whatever. 4 million drivers times an average 400 dollars every six month is how much? Now generate an excuse to raise it to 600 every 6 for each driver will equal a nice bonus for regional vice presidents to fattan and spoil their wives and kids and buy big boats and fancy cars and 8000 sqaure foot houses! All so they can invest in factories to go to China. Make this law so insurances cannot be raised and watch it fizzle out.
Reply New Comment

Line

89) new revenue method [by Anonymous Citizen on June 6, 2003]
This is just another attempt by government to take money from hard working citizens.. BAD IDEA!

Zero Points Here!
Reply New Comment

Line

90) IT IS ALL ABOUT REVENUE [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
DO you really think that our government is truly concerned about it's citizens when they pass laws that hinder law abiding responsible people from going to work to help pay taxes to keep this country running?

I was charged with a dui when I could not blow into a breathalyzer due to Post Traumatic Stress disorder. I requested a blood test...which would of proven I was not drunk and because of the officers word, which he lied in court, it has adversely effected my life.

Do you think I am the only one to suffer this type of indignity..think again. There are countless numbers of people like me who are herded into a police station, have their license suspended or revoked, have huge fines imposed on them and then are expected to continue to work, and pay these fines...tell me, how are you suppose to travel to work if you dont have a license and you dont live near public transportation.

This country is getting more insane as time goes on. It is widely recognized that the MADD organization is a thinly veiled cover for a neo prohibitionist organization. It is not about getting the alcoholic off the road, it is about people not drinking at all, period.

Once again American sleeps while the enemy plots and schemes and takes away our freedoms.

Reply New Comment

Line

91) driving: right/privelege [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
driving is NOT a right, but persuing happiness IS.

we ALLOWED the state to build our highways FOR US by TAXING US.

we have given them the unenviable job of finding the money FROM US to keep those roads up.

we have given them NO OTHER CHOICE but to increase our taxes to keep up OUR ROADS.

when our taxes became no longer sufficient to do the job, they decided to TAX US FURTHER by ticketing us, and fining us.

notice that they DO NOT JAIL US, like they do when we break OTHER laws, instead, they just FINE US. they JAIL us when we refuse to pay the fine.

most people wouldn't want the repsonsibility to pay for upkeep on a road that they don't drive on, or is not close enough to them TO drive on.

i say, let's go to TOLL roads, and let the people who USE the roads pay for them.

speeding tickets would be simple, the people who take LESS THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET FROM TOLL BOOTH TO TOOL BOOTH pay a ticket.

if you don't want to use the toll road, take the path you buy through the woods.
Reply New Comment

Line

92) Debtor's Prison [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2005]
That's what this is. Impose fees on people, remove their licenses to drive when they can't pay, remove their means to get to and from work, then tack another license reinstatement fee on for having the will to defy the mighty nation of Mi$higan
Reply New Comment

Line

93) Teenagers [by Anonymous Citizen on June 6, 2003]
Targeting teenagers would be best. There are some in that age group that do not respect authority or parents or anyone else. But they mysteriously have as much as $3000 to spend on stereo equipment.
Reply New Comment

Line

94) And they're on your lawn [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2005]
Don't you need to change your depends?
Reply New Comment

Line

95) Grow up [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2006]
Is your shitty attitude is because mommy didn't change your diaper? 50-60-70 out of touch with reality? That's when real life begins. You haven't experienced reality yet. Reality starts after you leave home and Mummsy and Daddy are planted in the marble orchard and you no longer have mommy's apron or daddys wallet to cling to.
Reply New Comment

Line

96) My My [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2006]
Do we have our panties all knotted up this morning? Get a grip. All these fees are illegal and charging for the same crime twice is unconstitutional. Try going out and rounding up someone that got out of jail last year and tell them that Jenny thinks that they need to do another year or two, this should be fun to watch.
Reply New Comment

Line

97) annual fines added for points?! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2003]
Rediculous!
Do not pass this legislation.
Talk about pushing people into poverty.
Tickets and points and insurance costs and additional fees annualy as a result of overzealous police writing tickets and unreasonable assessments of fees.

4 points with one ticket and 7 points by chance is all it takes for you to reap this wrath of law.

Why cause excessive punishment upon the already punished.
Reply New Comment

Line

98) Granholm [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2005]
I was assessed a $300 driver responsibility fee for being pulled over with an expired operators license. By the way, the license was expired by 2 days. So on top of paying $225 in tickets to keep my license , i now owe governor granholm $300 for getting those tickets. Getting tickets for getting tickets hmm. That's like telling someone who has done their time in county jail that they have to go to prison for being irresponsible enough to go to county jail in the first place. I've paid my dues, i don't see why i should be punished for doing so. I don't see how my expired operator's license was an immediate threat to anyone or how fining me for it after already ticketing me for it is going to make things any safer for anyone. I don't have a bad driving record. I'm a safe driver, and yet i'm punished under the umbrella of keeping others safe. This has little to do with safety, and everything to do with money. If governor Granholm wasn't so incompetant and could actually balance a budget, she wouldn't have to resort to extorting money from a college kid who can barely keep his wheels on the road as it is with insurance fees, repairs, etc.
Reply New Comment

Line

99) if you understood how government works [by socalledauthor on May 9, 2006]
You would realize that the laws and bills are written by the legislature. They can ignore what the governor suggests, as has been done REPEATEDLY in Michigan over the past four years.

A balanced budget also comes from the legislator. A governor is an exectutive-- they execute the laws, as is sign them into being. Even if the executor does not agree with a bill (or any of the things attatched) and she vetoes it, that does not mean the bill will not become law. It only needs a majority vote to pass OVER A VETO. A smart executor knows how to pick his or her battles.

So, blame Granholm all you want. Just remember who to vote for in the legislature, because THEY make more of a difference than the executor. It's THEIR wording in the bills, not Granholm's.

Oh yeah, don't forget to blame the FEDERAL government for drastically cutting what funding it was GOING to send to the states.
Reply New Comment

Line

100) This is typical [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2005]
of a Canadian liberal. Spend out of control, stick the populace with the tab.
Reply New Comment

Line

101) 7 points - off the road [by Anonymous Citizen on June 4, 2003]
This is a bad bill, and you passed it. If someone is so dangerous on the road, that they accumulated 7 points, they should be off the road. This bill will end up killing or maiming innocent people, in my opinion.
Reply New Comment

Line

102) Additional Fines Agree [by Anonymous Citizen on May 23, 2003]
Oh please! Yes I am a teacher-if anyone is listening please make it $1000 for any driving age high school student who has disciplinary suspensions on their records. The only way these students of today listen is if you take it out of their pocket books! Some students use profanity at me on a daily basis! and I am told to keep it in context "because we a an institution of caring" "We are an empathitic organization and the students just have a some simple growing up to do" is what my administrator told me! Fine them unruly students for poor academic progress also.
Thank you for your time
Have a great memorial day break
Reply New Comment

Line

103) Sick Teacher [by Anonymous Citizen on May 26, 2007]
"57) Additional Fines Agree [by Anonymous Citizen on May 23, 2003]
Oh please! Yes I am a teacher-if anyone is listening please make it $1000 for any driving age high school student who has disciplinary suspensions on their records. The only way these students of today listen is if you take it out of their pocket books! Some students use profanity at me on a daily basis! and I am told to keep it in context "because we a an institution of caring" "We are an empathitic organization and the students just have a some simple growing up to do" is what my administrator told me! Fine them unruly students for poor academic progress also.
Thank you for your time
Have a great memorial day break"

I cannot believe this person hasn't been hastily removed from whatever place she teaches at by an angry lynch mob of parents with stones.
Reply New Comment

Line

104) I am sorry to say this [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2007]
But you should of chosen a different profession. The fines imposed on our society is yet just another indication of how twisted things have become. It is more about punishment and revenue than it is about Justice and correction and instruction.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."
Reply New Comment

Line

105) You [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2006]
are sick and should not be allowed near a child.
Seek Help
Reply New Comment

Line

106) Teenagers [by Anonymous Citizen on May 23, 2003]
Make it additional $200 for teenagers receiving a any grade less than a C average. And Additional $500 for teenagers who get disciplinary suspensions of any kind.
Reply New Comment

Line

107) BS!! [by Anonymous Citizen on December 26, 2007]
Man, I'd like to know what the heck does grades have to do with how much the state "charges" to drive?
Reply New Comment

Line

108) nothing, [by Anonymous Citizen on December 26, 2007]
but as long as you THINK they do, the state get's away with charging you more.
Reply New Comment

Line

109) driver fee are stupid [by Anonymous Citizen on April 14, 2007]
you have to be out of your freaken mind to charge such outrages fines to people so they can put food on the table. grrr
Reply New Comment

Line

110) how about??? [by crazycajun on May 10, 2006]
how about just taking the keys away when junior makes less than a c. or taking the tires off of his car when he gets suspended?

Must the state do everything for you?
Reply New Comment

Line

111) Or... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2005]
Hire competant instructors. Send said teenagers to schools that don't spend more on the football programs than they do on fixing the leaky roofs (see Jefferson High School in monroe county). How old are you? 50? 60? 80? you'd have to be to be that out of touch with reality
Reply New Comment

Line

112) young people can be out of touch too! [by socalledauthor on May 9, 2006]
And apparently they can also resort to name calling! For whatever good that does on a public board where most are "Anonymous"
Reply New Comment

Line


Received in the House on June 3, 2003. Passed in the House (64 to 45) on July 2, 2003. New Comment

1) Rep. Bieda's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on July 22, 2003]
Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on Senate Bill 509 (H-6) because I am concerned about the dramatically increased fines, especially the provision requiring annual 'driver responsibility fees,' which strike me as particularly punitive and unfair."
Reply New Comment

Line


Received in the Senate on July 3, 2003. Passed in the Senate (32 to 4) on July 15, 2003. New Comment

1) Sen. Leland's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on July 31, 2003]
Senator Leland, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurring in the House Substitute and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of concurring in the House Substitute be printed as his reason for voting "no."

The motion prevailed.

Senator Leland's statement is as follows:

I'm going to vote "no" on this bill now, and I would hope that most of my colleagues would vote "no." I think what we're going to end up doing here is we're going to end up with a lot of drivers now who are going to be driving with no license. These folks who are going to be tagged with this fine are going to be hit twice. I think it's unfair. Some folks will have to drive for whatever their reasons are, and if they have to pay this additional money to restore or to keep their driver's license, they're going to end up driving on the streets with no driver's license. It is what it is.

Again, I think that it's unfortunate that we are passing a law that says that justice is for those who can afford to pay the price. I don't think that people who necessarily have bad driving records are driving worse than other folks. They're just stuck in a situation where they're helpless, they can't get out, and they don't know how to use the system or manipulate the system.

I think this is a bad bill. I tried to make it a better bill with my amendment. As I indicated, my amendment would have sent them to driving school as an option. The purpose of this bill is to make better drivers. We're not making better drivers in this bill by sticking it to them financially, and we're sticking it to the people who are on the low end of the scale, who are the folks who can least afford it. I think this is very unfortunate, and I'm sorry that my colleagues don't agree with me. Please vote "no" on this bill.
Reply New Comment

Line


Received in the House on July 15, 2003. Passed in the House (67 to 40) on July 16, 2003. New Comment

1) Thanks Michigan [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2008]
I have been without a lisanse for 10 years. I keep getting driveing on suspend. I have to go to work to keep my house and food on the table. I have quit work so I dont drive and have been sober over a year. I am now faceing a devorice. My wife gets made when I dont bring money home to support my 5 year old daughter. I work construction as a mason. The jobs in Michigan are hard to come by thes days. I could pay my fines if I could drive to work. I am not lazy or even a bad driver. never had a speeding ticket or ran a stop sign. I just got into some trouble 10 years ago. Now I am a criminal thank. I love my daughter and my wife vary much. I have made some bad desisions in the past, but I have tryed hard to be a better person. I have strugeled with drugs and alcahole for 15 years. Now I am clean and sober just what the state of Michigan wants. But thay will not give me a lisense. I will lose the rest of what I have a butiful little daughter a loveing wife. I know its not all the state of Michigans falt. I put my self in this situation. But what pisses me of the most is thay want you to jump througe hops. I have jumped as high as I can. I think I might end it all by one last jump in frount of a bus infrount of the state capital. All I am is a burned out shell I have not a dame thing. I figure my daughter will get about a $1000.00 a mounth From the my socal sacerity. I bet the stat of Michigan will garnes the checks untel thay get there $4400.00. I have no fight left in me.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) WOW [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
WOW [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
I never knew it was so many people with the same problem. Well all I know is that you can't serve two master's(GOD & Money). I feel sorry for the goverment because they are all about money and makeing sure the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich. And the best thing in life right now is knowing that soon they will all BURN IN HELL!!!!!! So don't worry because God is coming back soon and they will get what is coming to them. But please just don't pay it and they will come around or move like I will be soon. Remeber that evryone doesn't believe in God and that is why we have stuiped people in office. May God Bless You All that read this.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) WOW [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
I never knew it was so many people with the same problem. Well all I know is that you can't serve two master's(GOD & Money). I feel sorry for the goverment because they are all about money and makeing sure the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich. And the best thing in life right now is knowing that soon they will all BURN IN HELL!!!!!! So don't worry because God is coming back soon and they will get what is coming to them. But please just don't pay it and they will come around or move like I will be soon. Remeber that evryone doesn't believe in God and that is why we have stuiped people in office. May God Bless You All that read this.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Unreal [by Anonymous Citizen on November 10, 2007]
So wait a minute. This is PER YEAR? So a struggling family has their insurance lapse, and the person is ticketed.

So they pay the $200.00 and rent a car from a friend for $100.00 a month, and the offender doesn't even drive it, so they can save money - get back on their feet, and drive it with the taxes being paid, as well as saving up for money and the total insurance package to get back on the road legally.

By the time they pay for the car, and are ready to pay for driving it insured, switch the title over (paying all the taxes) they are told they have to pay another $200.00 for the next year? Despite a very, very, very tight budget to get everything back in gear? What is this?

Nothing more than a deliberate attempt at keeping people down and out. Is it any wonder that they have run the state into bankruptcy, and the only solution they could come up with (at the last second) was to raise taxes.

What a scam.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) just another way to [by Anonymous Citizen on November 10, 2007]
screw the hardworking people in the city. Not only do we already pay higher rates....no erase that we already pay astronomical rates but now someone who fell on hard times will have to pay this and try to get their coverage back....????? Why don't we stop the red lining first thats the bigger problem and then instances of driving with no insurance will go down because everyone will be able to afford insurance not just the subburbs.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Good Luck Michigan! [by Anonymous Citizen on October 4, 2007]
I moved to Michigan five years ago. Not by choice per say, but to be closer to my son after a divorce. When I first arrived I got pulled over and did not have proof of insurance. I was guilty. I was going through a tough finacial period. Then after fines I get slammed with an additional $400 fine. That's left a very bad taste in my mouth about Michigan ever since. I will be getting full custody of my son soon, and I can move over the boarder to Indiana. Congrats Michigan, you got my $400 dollars, but you will lose THOUSANDS in lost tax revenue from me. Good luck Michigan, I'm out of here!
Reply New Comment

Line

7) I understand what you mean [by Anonymous Citizen on December 16, 2007]
You, and so many more have gone before you for the very same reasons. The taxes lost in this state due to people "getting out" is one of the reasons we are in such a horrible budget situation. The government wanted to balance the state budget on the backs of those that were less fortunate. So long and take care.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) bullshit [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
Everyone assessed agrees this law is bullshit, and everyone who has been spared this inconvenience believes it is great. I stand "bullshit" side of the fence.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) Excellent Post [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
Direct and to the point
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Stop With The Stupid Laws Already [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2007]
If you mental midgets can't see what you are doing to this state, get out and talk to the real people that have to deal with all the goat droppings that you keep squeezing out of your little taxpayer supplied offices. To steal a line from D. Trump...
YOU'RE FIRED!
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Mi$higan [by Anonymous Citizen on May 26, 2007]
Like alot of the rest of you, I am stuck too because of this crap, in addition to the New Michigan Tough Alcohol Laws combing to cause me to lose my license for having a few beers and then moving my car 10 foot into the front yard to let people out of the driveway even though the house was a hundred yards down a posted no trespassing dirt drive way out in bfe country 15 minutes from a single paved road. The cops came a half hour later for a disturbance and arrested me for DUI after I told them I had just moved my car when the disturbance occured. My license was only revoked for a year but I will never get it back. It took me over 3 years to get the alcohol classes and counseling and all that bull$hit done and I just got the hearing letter today and they offered me a restricted license but it was contingent on me paying $1000 michigan drivers responsiblity fee, reinstatement fee, have a breathalyzer ignition module installed for a few hundred bucks, and then almost $100 a week charge on top of it all just for the breathalyzer ignition module! And if I missed that weekly payment or even looked at anyone the wrong way it would be a complete revocation of my license again.

This caused me to lose everything I