Mideast Assembly Thread

[California8429]

I would just like to tell you guys how much I really enjoyed my time in the Assembly.  It really was a great experience, and I hope the best for all of you!

Thanks for serving

[California8429]

Just checking in.  If nobody would object I will take a stab at the DUI bill.

It's great that you're taking initiative. Go for it!

Please feel free to

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I would just like to tell you guys how much I really enjoyed my time in the Assembly.  It really was a great experience, and I hope the best for all of you!

Thank you, and good luck in the Senate.

Just checking in.  If nobody would object I will take a stab at the DUI bill.

You replaced Barnes, no? Welcome to the Assembly. Sure, feel free to try it out.

[Purple State]

As the proposed new Constitution must be ratified by the regions, I am posting this public service announcement in the threads of the regional legislatures:

Very Important Announcement

The Constitutional Convention is reaching its end, with the final two documents being voted on as we speak.

At this time, delegates and all Atlasians are welcome to offer their thoughts on an amendment to ANY part of the new Constitution, which will be considered all at once in one final amendment vote coming up in the next 48-72 hours. This means that any changes you would like to see to the current document should be offered right now.

Here is the relevant announcement in the Convention thread:

During the next 48 hours, please offer any amendments, as well as debate, that you would like to see considered for any part of the document. This is your last chance to make finishing touches to any of the more controversial changes, including dual-office holding, regional legislatures, the legislative restart, etc.

Feel free to offer opposing variations to amendments as well, which will then be brought up as a package vote.

Here is the relevant links to help you out:

Constitutional Convention thread

Constitutional Convention completed documents page

Please review the completed documents and post here or in the Convention thread with your comments, ideas or amendments. I would be happy to offer well thought out amendments on behalf of non-delegates.

This is a crucial moment in this process, as the next step is a final vote and then presentation to the regions for approval.

Thanks,
~President Purple State

Articles VII and VIII have been passed and the entire proposed Third Constitution is now nearly set. There is now just under 24 hours remaining for the proposal of amendments to any part of this document, before a final vote and presentation to the regions for the ratification process.

Please, I implore all the citizens of Atlasia, read through the completed documents page (linked in the quoted announcement above) and propose any amendments in this thread or in the Constitutional Convention thread (also linked above). Even if you don't know how to word the amendment properly, provide your thoughts and I will help you out.

[Junkie]

Here is my draft of a new DUI bill:


MIDEAST DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AN INTOXICANT OR OTHER DRUG ACT

1.)   Definitions:

a.   In this act:

i.    "Drive" means the exercise of physical control over the speed and direction of a motor vehicle while it is in motion.

ii.    "Operate" means the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put it in motion.

iii.   “Motor Vehicle” means any self-propelled means of transportation, including but not limited to automobiles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, airplanes, motorboats, scooters, trucks, or any other self-propelled vehicle capable of operating on regional highways

2.)   No person may drive or operate a motor vehicle while:

a.   Under the influence of an intoxicant, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or any combination of an intoxicant, a controlled substance and a controlled substance analog, under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving, or under the combined influence of an intoxicant and any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving; or

b.   The person has a prohibited alcohol concentration.

c.    A person may be charged with and a prosecutor may proceed upon a complaint based upon a violation of any combination of  Section (2) paragraph (a),  or (b) for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence. If the person is charged with violating any combination of Section (2) paragraph (a), or (b),  the offenses shall be joined. If the person is found guilty of any combination of Section (2) paragraph (a), or (b)  for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence, there shall be a single conviction for purposes of sentencing and for purposes of counting convictions under this statute. Section (2) paragraph (a), or (b)  each require proof of a fact for conviction which the others do not require.

d.    Penalties for violation of Section (2)

i.   For a first offense, shall forfeit not less than $150 nor more than $300 and a suspension of a driver’s license for not more than six months.

ii.   Shall be fined not less than $350 nor more than $1,100 and imprisoned for not more than 6 months if the number of convictions previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 2, and a suspension of driver’s license for not more than nine months.

iii.   Shall be fined not less than $600 nor more than $2,000 and imprisoned for not more than 12 months if the number of convictions previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 3 or 4 , and a suspension of driver’s license for not more than 12 months.

iv.   Shall be fined not less than $1000 nor more than $3,000 and imprisoned for not more than 3 years if the number of convictions previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 5 or more, and a suspension of driver’s license for not more than 18 months.

3.)    It is unlawful for any person to cause injury to another person by the operation of a vehicle while:

a.    Under the influence of an intoxicant, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or any combination of an intoxicant, a controlled substance and a controlled substance analog, under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving, or under the combined influence of an intoxicant and any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving; or

b.    The person has a prohibited alcohol concentration.

c.   A person may be charged with and a prosecutor may proceed upon a complaint based upon a violation of any combination of  Section (2) paragraph (a), or (b), for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence. If the person is charged with violating any combination of Section (2) paragraph (a), or (b),  the offenses shall be joined. If the person is found guilty of any combination of Section (2) paragraph (a), or (b)  for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence, there shall be a single conviction for purposes of sentencing and for purposes of counting convictions under this statute. Section (2) paragraph (a), or (b),  each require proof of a fact for conviction which the others do not require.

d.   In an action under this subsection, the defendant has a defense if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury would have occurred even if he or she had been exercising due care and he or she had not been under the influence of an intoxicant, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or a combination thereof, under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving, or under the combined influence of an intoxicant and any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving, or did not have a prohibited alcohol concentration described under Section (3) Paragraph (b).

e.    Penalties for violation of Section (3)

i.   Shall be fined not less than $600 nor more than $2,000 and imprisoned for not more than 12 months if the number of convictions, previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 3 or  less , and a suspension of driver’s license for not more than 12 months.

ii.   Shall be fined not less than $1000 nor more than $3,000 and imprisoned for not more than 3 years if the number of convictions previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 4 or more, and a suspension of driver’s license for not more than 18 months.

[Junkie]

4.)    If a person has not attained the legal drinking age of 18, the person may not drive or operate a motor vehicle while he or she has an alcohol concentration of more than 0.0 but not more than 0.08. One penalty for violation of this subsection is suspension of a person's operating privilege for a period of six months. If a person arrested for a violation of this subsection refuses to take a breathalyzer test, the refusal is a separate violation and the person is subject to revocation of the person's operating privilege for a period of six months.

5.)    No person may drive or operate or be on duty time with respect to a commercial motor vehicle under any of the following circumstances:

a.   Under the influence of an intoxicant, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or any combination of an intoxicant, a controlled substance and a controlled substance analog, under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving, or under the combined influence of an intoxicant and any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving; or

b.   While having an alcohol concentration above 0.0. or

c.    Within 4 hours of having consumed or having been under the influence of an intoxicating beverage, regardless of its alcohol content, or

d.    While possessing an intoxicating beverage, regardless of its alcohol content. This
subdivision does not apply to possession of an intoxicating beverage if the beverage is unopened and is manifested and transported as part of a shipment.

e.    A person may be charged with and a prosecutor may proceed upon a complaint based upon a violation of any combination of  Section (5) paragraph (a), or (b), for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence. If the person is charged with violating any combination of Section (5) paragraph (a), or (b),  the offenses shall be joined. If the person is found guilty of any combination of Section (5) paragraph (a), or (b)  for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence, there shall be a single conviction for purposes of sentencing and for purposes of counting convictions under this statute. Section (5) paragraph (a), or (b),  each require proof of a fact for conviction which the others do not require.

f.   Penalties for violation of Section (5)

i.   Shall be fined not less than $600 nor more than $2,000 and imprisoned for not more than 12 months if the number of convictions, previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 3 or  less , and a suspension of driver’s license for not more than 12 months.

ii.   Shall be fined not less than $1000 nor more than $3,000 and imprisoned for not more than 3 years if the number of convictions previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 4 or more, and a suspension of driver’s license for not more than 18 months.

6.)    No person may cause injury to another person by the operation of a commercial motor vehicle under any of the following circumstances:

a.   Under the influence of an intoxicant, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or any combination of an intoxicant, a controlled substance and a controlled substance analog, under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving, or under the combined influence of an intoxicant and any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving; or

b.   While having an alcohol concentration above 0.0. or

c.    Within 4 hours of having consumed or having been under the influence of an intoxicating beverage, regardless of its alcohol content, or

d.    While possessing an intoxicating beverage, regardless of its alcohol content. This subdivision does not apply to possession of an intoxicating beverage if the beverage is unopened and is manifested and transported as part of a shipment.

e.   Penalties for violation of Section (6)

i.   Shall be fined not less than $600 nor more than $2,000 and imprisoned for not more than 12 months if the number of convictions, previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 3 or  less , and a suspension of driver’s license for not more than 12 months.

ii.   Shall be fined not less than $1000 nor more than $3,000 and imprisoned for not more than 3 years if the number of convictions previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 4 or more, and a suspension of driver’s license for not more than 18 months.

f.    A person may be charged with and a prosecutor may proceed upon a complaint based upon a violation of any combination of  Section (6) paragraph (a), or (b), for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence. If the person is charged with violating any combination of Section (6) paragraph (a), or (b),  the offenses shall be joined. If the person is found guilty of any combination of Section (6) paragraph (a), or (b)  for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence, there shall be a single conviction for purposes of sentencing and for purposes of counting convictions under this statute. Section (6) paragraph (a), or (b),  each require proof of a fact for conviction which the others do not require.

7.)    If there was a minor passenger under 16 years of age in the motor vehicle at the time of the violation that gave rise to the conviction under Sections (2), Paragraph (d) subparagraph
(i)  the person shall be fined not less than $350 nor more than $1,100 and imprisoned for not less than 5 days nor more than 6 months.

8.)    If there was a minor passenger under 16 years of age in the motor vehicle at the time of the violation that gave rise to the conviction under all other sections besides Section (2), Paragraph (d), subparagraph (i)  the applicable minimum and maximum fines and imprisonment  for the conviction are doubled.

[Badger]

I greatly appreciate the theroughness and legalese of this proposal. Did you base this of WI's statute, Junkie?

Still, I do have some concerns about it. First the penalties just seem too weak across the board. A maximum potential license suspension of only 18 months on a sixth or more conviction within 10 years?!? No minimum license suspension period at all? Not even the option of jail on a first offense that doesn't involve serious injury? (Keep in mind at least a suspended jail sentence is necessary to place someone on probation and thereby enforce court orders such as alcohol counseling, no alcohol consumption, community service, etc.) For that matter the law doesn't include more serious penalties for persons testing a .17 BAC or more as many states do.

Just for example, in Ohio a first offense within 6 years has maximum penalties of 6 months jail, a 3 year license suspension, and $1,000 fine. The minimum mandatory penalties for a first offense include a $375 fine, 6 months license suspension, and 3 days incarceration (which can be spent at a 72 hour driver intervention program instead of the county jail; for obvious reasons 99% of first offenders choose this option). On a second and third offense within 6 years, the mandatory jail is increased to 10 days and 30 days respectively, license suspensions raised to 1-5 years and 3-8 years respectively, and markedly increased fines. If someone tests above a .17 BAC, the mandatory jail time in all cases is doubled (including 3 days actual jail time on a first offense).

I'm not saying Ohio has all the answers, but the point here is more strict penalties than proposed here are hardly unrealistic or inappropriate.

Finally, I'd note that this law doesn't penalize a refusal of chemical testing after lawful arrest and legal notice, which would result in a cutoff of federal highway funds pursuant to a brilliant federal statute crafted after our region's current law.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/You_Can%27t_Beat_a_DUI_..._Act

[Junkie]

Thanks Badger.  I based it somewhat on Wisconsin and also on the second DUI Mideastern statute that I believe you helped write.

As far as sixth offenses, I have no problem with more than 18 months.  I actually believe in more than that, but since the current Mideastern law only had a fine, I thought I should keep it lower to see how people react.

In Wisconsin, we do not have jail for first offenses.  I agree with this.  Most first offenses are fairly minor and I do believe in giving most first time offenders a break.

As far as minimum jail or driver's license suspension.  I did not include that because I do not believe in mandatory minimums.  I believe it takes the discretion away from prosecutors and judges who are employed to exercise discretion.  They are few and far between, but I believe there are cases when jail is not appropriate.

The aggravating situations for a first offense that might require jail (accident, commercial driver, minor in the vehicle) I believe are appropriately addressed in those areas of the statute.

Also, refusals would count against in terms of future offenses, but you are right, they do not include jail time.

If people believe that the statute could be better, I am more than open to suggestions in how to write it better.  It is my first attempt.

[California8429]

Thanks Junkie.

I'm with Badger on tougher punishments expect jail for a first offense, but I'm perfectly fine with going tough on this. There's no reason to cut slack just because it happens so often right?

[Badger]

Reasonable points. I too generally oppose mandatory sentencing laws for the same lack of discretion involved. Still, I think there's a difference between statutes which mandate years or decades in prison without option versus mandating a few months license suspension (with restricted privileges for work, school, medical needs, etc. of course), and a weekend intervention program. Both the same principle I admit, but on a far lesser scales.

Two concerns I have about not even allowing the option of jail time on a first offense: First, as I said if a judge wants to place a defendant on probation for a couple years with conditions they attend alcohol counseling, abstain from booze, have no repeat offenses, etc., that would require at least the option of imposing a suspended jail sentence to enforce those conditions.

Secondly, with the former point in mind this only covers a first offense within 10 years. A judge sentencing a defendant with several lifetime DUI's all 11 + years old can't impose more than a 6 month license suspension and $300 fine. No probation. No alcohol counseling. No mandated sobriety. Nada.

Again, I see your point about not wanting to limit the flexability of courts and prosecutors with too much mandatory sentencing, Junkie, but doesn't prohibiting even the option of jail and/or probation on a first offense in 10 years create the same lack of judicial discretion?

While I'm glad to see you're willing to consider > 18 months for 6th in a decade offenders, I gotta say I believe limiting the maximum potential suspension for other multiple offenders to a year or less just doesn't seriously address the problem.

I just noticed a possible drafting error in the language used to define prior offenses. The phrase: "...if the number of convictions previous to the date of the current offense within a 10-year period, equals 2..." in Section 2(d)(ii) means the penalties would only apply on a third offense (i.e. they had two prior convictions before picking up their latest offense). I assume you meant that section to apply to second offenders, right? For that matter, was that the intent using the same language in lines iii and iv (e.g. penalties in paragraph iii should apply to 3rd and 4th time offenders rather than 4th and 5th time offenders as the proposal currently reads)?

Here's another fly in the ointment: By federal law the minimum fine for a first offense must be at least $500, and $1000 for all subsequent offenses. Otherwise the region will lose 10% of federal highway funding. We don't want to deal with that, especially with a budget coming.

One last suggestion: It may behove to add a single line stating that this bill does not supercede and is consolidated with The Mideast Drunk Driving Reform Bill. This would not change whatever the penalties the Assembly decides on, but would continue to criminalize the refusal of breath testing after lawful arrest and notice of the consequences with the same penalties as a DUI offense. Oh, and it will also keep the region from again losing 10% of our federal highway funds under the federal "You Can't Beat a DUI...." law.

In summary, IMHO this proposal needs amended to at least:
a) Allow at least the option of jail (suspended for probation or otherwise) on a first offense;
b) Strongly increase potential license suspensions, especially for repeat offenders; and
c) Comply with federal mandates.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That's a lot to read.... lol.  I'll read that later.

[Junkie]

That's a lot to read.... lol.  I'll read that later.

I agree.  It grew as I tried to deal with all the issues.  I apparently haven't gotten them all...just look at Badger's comments.  One of the reasons I love him is that he is often right.

I agree with the refusal comment.  We should comply with Federal law.  Either of the two approaches will work.

The points as to increasing penalties is also sound.  Maybe we should change "10 years" to "lifetime" after the second offense.

In terms of the first offense, in Wisconsin it is a municipal violation, not a crime, and their are benefits to that.  We use resumption of the driver's license to enforce compliance with treatment, et. al., instead of probation.  If people don't like it, how about stealing something from Illinois where first offenses are expunged from the record upon successful completion (but still count for future offenses).  In that way, first time offenders don't get saddled with a criminal conviction if they take the treatment they clearly need, but we do not let anyone take advantage of the system and become perpetual drunk drivers.

Let me know what you think.

[California8429]

That's a lot to read.... lol.  I'll read that later.

I agree.  It grew as I tried to deal with all the issues.  I apparently haven't gotten them all...just look at Badger's comments.  One of the reasons I love him is that he is often right.

I agree with the refusal comment.  We should comply with Federal law.  Either of the two approaches will work.

The points as to increasing penalties is also sound.  Maybe we should change "10 years" to "lifetime" after the second offense.

In terms of the first offense, in Wisconsin it is a municipal violation, not a crime, and their are benefits to that.  We use resumption of the driver's license to enforce compliance with treatment, et. al., instead of probation.  If people don't like it, how about stealing something from Illinois where first offenses are expunged from the record upon successful completion (but still count for future offenses).  In that way, first time offenders don't get saddled with a criminal conviction if they take the treatment they clearly need, but we do not let anyone take advantage of the system and become perpetual drunk drivers.

Let me know what you think.

I think the IL law you suggested is a good idea. Especially for the people that this truly will only happen once and they are generally good people, and it isn't letting them off since they'll still have to go through classes or serve time.

[California8429]

I'm going to give more time on this debate 1) It's a long read 2) With the suggestions that come in, Junkie, are you going to be modifying the bill?

[Junkie]

I will be making some of the changes we have talked about.  Please give me time, as writing this thing is a little like writing computer code.  I have to go line by line to make sure it still makes sense.  As Badger pointed out, I already missed one area, so I am trying to fix that.

[California8429]

While this is likely to take a long time, as Junkie pointed out. I would like to suggest quickly debating and voting on the election law Teddy has proposed for all regions to prevent any crisis' like the Northeast.

With no objections I'll bring forward the bill

[tmthforu94]

I know we have another bill being discussed, but I'd also like to bring this bill to the Assembly's attention that is currently passing in the Pacific:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I made a modification on what would be taxed. The Pacific is doing gasoline, but I find cigarettes more suitable. This way, we're killing two birds with one stones. We're encouraging Mideast residents to stop smoking by making it more expensive while also providing incentives for students to take math or science classes.

I am perfectly open to any modifications.

[Hash]

a. I'm a bit uneasy with creating a sort of special distinction for math/science students, potentially at the expense of art, liberal art or social science students. Does the region want to give the message that math and science students are better, smarter and worth supporting over others?

b. Do we want to provide funding for the education of really rich kids whose mom and dads have more than enough cash on their own?

c. I'm not sure, but does the region have an equivalent of OSAP (see: https://osap.gov.on.ca/OSAPPortal/en/Home/index.htm)? If not, that would be preferable to this.

[California8429]

I'd be open to it...however that is a lot of money we are talking about and I'm not sure cigarettes taxes can pay for huge sums like that. Plus, with the budget we have a legislative reboot on spending really. So this can just be instead, placed in the budget since we don't have taxes or spending completly set up yet anyways

[tmthforu94]

a. I'm a bit uneasy with creating a sort of special distinction for math/science students, potentially at the expense of art, liberal art or social science students. Does the region want to give the message that math and science students are better, smarter and worth supporting over others?

b. Do we want to provide funding for the education of really rich kids whose mom and dads have more than enough cash on their own?

a. While I certainly believe other subjects are important (even I won't be taking math or science), it is becoming increasingly difficult to get students to major in these subjects. Two graduating students from my school last year is planning on majoring in math/science. Imagine how much higher that number would be with an incentive like this.

b. You make an excellent point, Hashemite. Perhaps including it only for families with an income of less than $250,000?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

a. I'm a bit uneasy with creating a sort of special distinction for math/science students, potentially at the expense of art, liberal art or social science students. Does the region want to give the message that math and science students are better, smarter and worth supporting over others?

I'm opposed for this reason.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

While this is likely to take a long time, as Junkie pointed out. I would like to suggest quickly debating and voting on the election law Teddy has proposed for all regions to prevent any crisis' like the Northeast.

With no objections I'll bring forward the bill

What bill is this?

[California8429]

While this is likely to take a long time, as Junkie pointed out. I would like to suggest quickly debating and voting on the election law Teddy has proposed for all regions to prevent any crisis' like the Northeast.

With no objections I'll bring forward the bill

What bill is this?

Am I dreaming this up? I swear I saw a bill Teddy laid out for the Northeast about allowing the SoFE to open the voting booth, though I can't track it down...

[California8429]

Agenda:

MIDEAST DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AN INTOXICANT OR OTHER DRUG ACT
a.   Junkie will introduce the rewritten version after the previous debate over the bill, suggestions, and other comments given.
b.   Debate the final version (or revise again)
c.   Vote

Educational Incentives Act
a.   Bring forward the bill to debate with no objections since debate has ceased for over 48 hours in about two hours (due to Inks’ last comment)
b.   Allow for the modification or amending of the bill
c.   Consider not voting in order to place this in the budget (or specify in the bill that this will not be re-booted in the final version of the budget)

The Budget
a.   Complete spending draft
b.   Complete revenue draft
c.   Debate/Revise/Amend
d.   Vote

Sound good everyone?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Agenda:

MIDEAST DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AN INTOXICANT OR OTHER DRUG ACT
a.   Junkie will introduce the rewritten version after the previous debate over the bill, suggestions, and other comments given.
b.   Debate the final version (or revise again)
c.   Vote

Educational Incentives Act
a.   Bring forward the bill to debate with no objections since debate has ceased for over 48 hours in about two hours (due to Inks’ last comment)
b.   Allow for the modification or amending of the bill
c.   Consider not voting in order to place this in the budget (or specify in the bill that this will not be re-booted in the final version of the budget)

The Budget
a.   Complete spending draft
b.   Complete revenue draft
c.   Debate/Revise/Amend
d.   Vote

Sound good everyone?

Yes.