Moto - Music - Miscellany - Politics
GOP Checkpoints
The recent proposal for DUI checkpoints by Governor Chris Gregoire has raised some hackles around my neck of the sagebrush. Nearly the hour after the news hit the local TV and Newspapers last week, I was getting her hate mail from my righty friends complaining about the invasiveness and the un-constitutionality of the whole thing… and I really got a chuckle out of it. Really! In fact, I’m dying for the republican leadership to get behind the proposal. But will they?
First off, I think it’s miserable idea and I’ll touch on that later in another post. What is important is that while Dino Rossi is trying to paint Gregoire as soft on crime in his stump speech, he is conveniently ignoring one of the most prolific issues in public safety. But given the crowd he is trying to sway, I doubt he would fair well telling them he supports a measure that invades thier privacy.
And what a crafty response from the Governor. You see, if there was a problem that was any more well documented, it would be the problem of impaired driving. And the Republican leadership in Washington State knows it. But join with the Governor on this issue and you have abandoned the campaign theme that Christine Gregoire isn’t tough on crime. Kinda funny huh?
It’s a good play. But there also aren’t many democrats as far as I can see that are willing to get behind this. And it’s easy cover to hide behind the 1988 Wa. Supreme Court Ruling that DUI checkpoints were unconstitutional for both parties. The independent nature of Washington State voters, both D and R, don’t exactly want more intrusion into their privacy. That is amplified by policies that are prime to our upcoming federal elections with warrantless wiretapping and telcom immunity on the table. Still, if you are serious about public safety, at least this issue would come up.
I think it’s a sucker bet to take a political position on this when the vast majority Washingtonians are against DUI checkpoints. But it draws at least one argument out of the republican playbook. Despite republicans portraying themselves as being the “law and order” party, it only takes a little bit of law and order talk to install near silence. For all the talk about ”sex offenders” there isn’t much more distinct problem than impaired drivers in the grand scheme of things. And though I think neither party gets it right by bearing down with law enforcement instead of innovative solutions that reduce both DUI offenses and public attitude towards impaired driving, ”The Gov” just interrupted the conversation very well.
Comments are closed.
February 1, 2008 - 7:27 am
Don’t we already have DUI checkpoints? They are called highway patrol, city police and speed traps.
Anyway, interesting political analysis.
This is an interesting proposal by the Governor. Won’t fly though. But I do accept that making breathalyzer ignition interlocks standard on all cars is probably a smart idea.
The main problem is the car and its pervasiveness as our transportation infrastructure. You mention “innovative solutions that reduce both DUI offenses and public attitude towards impaired driving”, well part of the solution lies in better public transportation solutions, and walkable communities that preclude the need for a car. In the University District drunk driving is not so much a problem because most people who get really drunk there can walk home or to the dorm. Think of Ireland. Pub culture is huge there but the towns are small, so people can get pissed and walk home. They call it pub crawl for a reason.
I don’t know, but I think on some level we need identify the specific problem areas and figure out how to address the issue before someone gets behind the wheel. I suspect that if you interview the DUI offenders you will find that certain bars or situations correlate with higher incidences of DUI offenses. Perhaps we need a three strikes rule. If more than three incidences of DUIs can be traced back to a particular establishment in a particular calendar year then more onus needs to be placed on that particular bar, restaurant or festival. If enough legal pressure is placed on the places that serve alcohol then they will find creative ways to deal with the problem. No one is going to stop selling alcohol because it is too lucrative. But perhaps they might start to impose a “taxi cab deposit” at the door. If you walk into a bar you might be required to leave your keys and drivers license at the door. To get them back you have to pass a breathalyzer. And if you can’t a cab ride becomes compulsory. Basically force people upon exit that either A.) They are fit to drive, B.) They have a designated driver. or C.) They take a cab or some form of transportation and the fee comes out of the “deposit” provided in advance to the establishment. It may sound draconian, but once it becomes routine at your favorite watering hole people will figure out strategies to effectively deal with the transportation needs.
The point is let the individual establishments figure out the most effective solution given their specific environment (rural vs. city, etc). But I see no problem with the state and the community saying if lots of people are driving drunk from your establishment then we are going to regulate you. Laissez faire is nice but as some point a community must impose sensible rules. Obviously at this point the bartenders themselves are somewhat liable and that seems to work out well. Because they are probably in the best situation to make judgements about someone’s impairment.
Let me go on and I can think of far worse proposals than car checkpoints.
February 1, 2008 - 7:31 am
By the way you wouldn’t have this conversation in NYC, or Chicago.
February 1, 2008 - 1:27 pm
I’d love to see a statistical analysis from 2007 comparing the number of people killed by these rogue elusive “homeless” sex offenders versus the number of people killed in alcohol-related auto fatalities.
Law & Order Rossi might have to re-write a bit of his stump speech; or just admit his re-canned and re-cycled GOP hate speech is just as unoriginal as everything else that falls out of his mouth.