Left, right agree on amenesty for traffic fines

My car was towed from an area near a train station in San Francisco last month. I had parked in front of a small “No Parking” sign that I had not seen. I spent an hour looking for my car and calling an attendant who didn’t answer the phone. When someone finally answered, she told me my car had been towed. It cost me $350.

At least I could afford to pay to get my car back. California is filled with people who are one traffic ticket away from losing their means of independent transportation. They get a ticket for a busted taillight or a small-change moving violation. On paper, the fine is $100, but with surcharges, it adds up to a lot more. People who cannot pay often do not show up in court — which drives up the cost. According to the Judicial Council of California, about 612,000 Californians have suspended driver’s licenses because they didn’t pay fines. In 2013, more people — 510,811 — had their licenses suspended for not paying fines than the 150,366 who had lost their licenses for drunken driving.

“For a lot of people, the car is the only asset they own in this whole damn world,” noted Mike Herald of the Western Center on Law &Poverty. “When you take their car, you’re taking the thing that helps them make money.”

Herald is an author of a report — about how traffic courts drive inequality — that helped prompt Gov. Jerry Brown to institute an 18-month amnesty program to deliver Californians from a “hellhole of desperation.” Under the program, Californians can get their outstanding fines reduced by 50 percent — or 80 percent if they make 125 percent of the federal poverty level or less. The amnesty program does not apply to parking tickets, reckless driving or drunken driving.

This is one of those issues that unite activists on the left and the right. The Western Center on Law &Poverty sees how the system crushes the working poor. Conservatives also see excessive fines and penalties as backdoor tax increases that lawmakers employ because they don’t need to sell them to voters. In December, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, joined U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the White House for an event that lauded the Brown amnesty program.

“We’ve turned too many of the police into tax collectors and wonder why they don’t have strong relations with the community,” Norquist said, according to NBC News. When people can’t pay fines in California, it means they have to forfeit their licenses. It’s deceptive advertising; a $100 fine can front for an extra $390 in add-ons. The price tag can grow exponentially if unpaid and lead to losing one’s license.

The penalty is harsh and crushing on the poor, but these fees also are undeserved for the middle class. If Sacramento wants to levy a $490 fine for moving violations, let lawmakers put honest numbers on their legislation — instead of pretending that the fine is $100. Alas, the Legislature has found that hidden fees are a handy way to finance the court system without voting to raise tax revenue. It’s the easy road.

And though judges might claim that they never asked for this system, they have been able to use the threat of driver’s license suspension as leverage to make Californians pony up.

The practice of throwing in extra sources of revenue is so ingrained in Sacramento that there is a $50 amnesty program fee. That’s right; if you want to pay off unpaid traffic fines that have ballooned because of hidden fees, first you have to pay another (albeit smaller) hidden fee.

“They’re a little tone-deaf,” Herald told me. Fellow activists explained that the $50 fee “is a barrier,” but to no avail.

If a private corporation advertised a $100 payment for something that really costs $500, California Attorney General Kamala Harris probably would go after the corporation for false advertising. If a credit card company boosted its fees the way the courts do, activists would call the practice usury. If the police yanked people’s driver’s licenses because they didn’t pay a $100 fine, the public would regard such a harsh penalty as excessive force. Yet Sacramento has codified a system that commits all three sins and it’s perfectly legal. Really, is there anything more brutal than government on autopilot?

Email Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

A model of a statue of Billy Frank Jr., the Nisqually tribal fishing rights activist, is on display in the lobby of the lieutenant governor's office in the state Capitol. (Jon Bauer / The Herald.
Editorial: Recognizing state history’s conflicts and common ground

State officials seek consensus in siting statues of an Indian rights activist and a missionary.

November 17, 2025: But Her Emails
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Nov. 18

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Where are cartoons lampooning Kamala Harris?

I agree with a recent letter writer, The Herald Opinion page’s cartoons… Continue reading

Editorial cartoons are satire; it’s to be expected

I have read and sent letters to the editor of The Herald… Continue reading

People should rely on own savings not on goverment assistance

Laudable is the social legislation that provides 26 weeks of subsidies to… Continue reading

Comment: What climate ‘realists’ miss are pledges’ quiet wins

Climate fatalists should consider that nations committed to reductions are meeting their targets.

Comment: Too many kids can’t read; blame lack of spelling tests

Leaving the task to spellcheck holds back kids’ skill and love of reading. Spelling is key to comprehension.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, Nov. 17

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE — President Donald Trump and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick display a chart detailing tariffs, at the White House in Washington, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The Justices will hear arguments on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 over whether the president acted legally when he used a 1977 emergency statute to unilaterally impose tariffs.(Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Editorial: Public opinion on Trump’s tariffs may matter most

The state’s trade interests need more than a Supreme Court ruling limiting Trump’s tariff power.

Comment: Ignoring Trump, stock market believes in climate crisis

Green energy and cleantech indices are outperforming the overall market. You can partially thanks AI’s demand.

Comment: Shutdown raises profile of childcare as an issue

With work requirements on or coming for SNAP and Medicaid, more families will rely on Head Start.

Saunders: Shutdown is over; recriminations for Democrats aren’t

Except for a handful of heroes, the Democrats need to explain why they put so many through this.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.