DJ Says...

If the Texas Senate, has its way, that could be the new nickname for our great state. Yesterday, the Senate approved SB-298 which allows Texas law enforcement officials to set up so-called "sobriety checkpoints". The question is, do we have such a crisis in Texas that we need to inhibit free travel in our state or is this a typical political overreaction from politicians pandering to their constituents?

First off, before we get to that discussion, I'd like to thank Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R-25) for consistently trying to uphold the Texas Constitution. The Senate has gotten into the habit of suspending the requirement that bills be read on three separate days, limiting the public's ability to know about and comment on legislation that is passed. Below is his standard reasoning for voting No on these suspension motions.

I cast a "No" vote on the procedural motion to suspend the Constitutional Rule requiring that bills be read on three several days in order to take up and consider CSSBi261, because in my judgment no circumstance exists in this case to justify the extraordinary act of suspending a requirement of the Texas Constitution. The suspension of this Constitutional Rule has the direct and immediate effect of denying the people of Texas knowledge and notice of the passage of this measure until it has already been finally passed on third reading. Were we to have followed the requirement of the Texas Constitution, third reading and a vote on CSSBi261 would have occurred on the next legislative day, allowing for Texans to have learned through news reports of our second reading vote exactly what we had tentatively passed. Third reading and a vote on the next legislative day would also have allowed our professional staff an opportunity overnight to make sure any amendments passed on second reading are technically correct.

Well said and so true.

Now, to the bill at hand. The Austin American Statesman has a detailed account of the proceedings yesterday. The daily journal of the Senate has the amendments and vote counts.

The bill's author, Sen. Carona (R-16) correctly states that the NHTSA statistics show that 1,292 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes in 2007 and also that Texas leads the nation in alcohol-related ftalities. What he doesn't tell us is that this number from 2007 represents a 7.7% DECREASE in fatalities from the previous year (DOT HS 811 034, slide 69). He also neglects to mention that total exposure increased. Total exposure is the number of vehicle miles traveled, up 0.5% nationwide, total registered vehicles, up 1.7% nationwide and total population, up 1.0% nationwide (DOT HS 811 034, slide 40). Texas continues to outpace the nation economically thus it is reasonable to conclude that Texas also outpaces the nation in those three categories.

Obviously, that data undermines Sen. Carona's and others' contention that this is a 'crisis' demanding a 'solution' from politicians. That doesn't stop Sen. Carona from making a seemingly outlandish claim:

“This bill could save 300 lives a year … Why would we not want to save 300 lives a year?” said state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas.

Really? How so? Is there testimony on the record that supports this claim? If so, it is not readily available. And if there is testimony to that effect, what data supported this conclusion? Should we not be able to examine it? Or should we simply bow to the accusation that if we are against this for any reason, we are part of the problem, not the solution?

“Do you want to be part of the solution?” Corona asked.

That was Sen. Carona's response to Sen. Hinojosa (D-20) when Sen. Hinojosa stated that he thought checkpoints were a violation of his constitutional rights. Is that what passes for debate in the Senate these days?

Also interesting is amendment 4 by Sen. Lucio (D-27):

(b)iiThe Department of Public Safety may not operate a temporary checkpoint in a county with a population of less than 250,000.

That is interesting because, as Sen. Whitmire (D-15) notes:

Under an amendment, state troopers would not be able to operate the checkpoints in counties of less than 250,000 population — areas such as Galveston Island and South Padre, and in many college towns such as San Marcos, College Station and Waco, according to critics.

“This is crazy. We’ve just exempted all but the 15 most populous counties, including many of the areas of the state where a lot of the drunken driving occurs — like colleges and recreational areas,” said state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, who voted against the measure.

It certainly does sound crazy.

To be fair, it is obvious that Sen. Carona and the co-authors of the bill have tried to address many of the elements of checkpoints that so enrage those of us that think we should protect our liberty above all else. The bill contains, in addition to the amendements, 13 specific requirements that must be met in order to have a legal checkpoint. These range from who may approve a checkpoint to publishing the date, location and procedures for the checkpoint prior to setting it up. And amendment 7 effectively sunsets the bill August 31, 2015.

Back to the question: is this a crisis requiring legislation that inhibits an ordinary citizen's freedom to travel the roads of Texas? I don't think so.