Traffic cameras would get red light under several bills in the Legislature

By MIKE WISER,

DES MOINES, Iowa --- State lawmakers are going after red-light and speed cameras with a renewed vigor this year with ban supporters claiming that public anger over such programs has reached a tipping point.

Republicans in the House and the Senate have offered bills to ban the cameras. A Sioux City representative introduced a constitutional amendment to do the same.

Meanwhile, an Urbandale lawmaker worked with a local talk radio host and the head of the Iowa branch of the American Civil Liberties Union to get more than 10,000 signatures of people who support a ban. The petitions were given to the governor and the legislative leaders last week.

Gov. Terry Branstad, for his part, said last week that he would sign legislation banning the cameras.

"I think it's unfair," Branstad told The Courier's editorial board Friday. "I had a personal experience two years ago in the desert of Arizona, and I found out two months later I got a ticket for going 10 miles over in a rental car out in the desert. I paid a $200 fine."

Subsesquently, Arizona and 10 other states banned them, Branstad said. Arizona, the first to adopt them in 2008, halted photo enforcement in July 2010, according to The New York Times.

"The Iowa Civil Liberties Union as well as many other people feel this is a violation of individual rights," Branstad said. "You don't get to see your accuser.

"I think a lot of the public is upset about this as well. I'm all for law enforcement and improving public safety. I like to say we have made great progress" largely without traffic cameras, noting Iowa's accident rate last year was the lowest since 1944.

"I think it's very unpopular with the general public," Branstad said. :I do think a part of being in leadership and government (is) we have a need to protect public safety and be responsive to citizens as well."

And in the backdrop to all of this is an election year in which a new legislative map takes effect. That means every incumbent has to cover at least some unfamiliar territory, and speed cameras --- a hotly contested issue in several communities across the state --- could become a campaign issue.

"It could be an asymmetrical answer because I don't know if being for the ban would necessarily win you an election, but I can see where being against the ban could be a hindrance," said Justin Holmes, assistant professor of political science at the University of Northern Iowa.

Holmes said there's a dearth of specific, scientific poll data on speed cameras in Iowa, but he's followed the debate and the attention it generates.

"This time around, the governor's statement might push it over the top," Holmes said. "Local government seems to like them, because they spend less on policing, but a lot of people don't."

Montezuma

"Now, they're talking about them in Montezuma (Iowa). That's a town of 1,400 people," said Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, a vocal opponent of the speed cameras who helped organize the petition drive. "Polk County government is looking at them. More and more, you see these popping up."

Several towns in the state, including Davenport, Muscatine, Sioux City, Ankeny, Clive and Cedar Rapids, have red-light and/or speed cameras in place. Other communities, such as Cedar Falls and Waterloo, have had presentations from companies that sell the cameras but have not installed them.

Zaun said he's fought, unsuccessfully, against the cameras since they first came to Iowa. He supported the challenges to their constitutionality and has been on every ban bill in the Senate.

In 2008, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the cameras were constitutional in a dispute arising from their use in Davenport.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brent Appel wrote, "Attacked as Orwellian when first introduced, the use of radar is now a standard tool of law enforcement. Innovation in traffic management has not been limited to speed control ... Most municipal authorities believe police officers have better things to do than to control traffic at intersections."

But a dissent authored by Justice David Wiggins argued that the cameras were not constitutional because it was impossible for traffic laws to be enforced uniformly. He gave an example of a motorist who gets five tickets from speed cameras in Davenport that is still allowed to drive even though it is state policy to suspend a license after three moving violations in 12 months.

"I don't always agree with Judge Wiggins, but I certainly do in that case," said Rep. Jeremy Taylor, a Republican from Sioux City who introduced a bill for a constitutional amendment that would ban cameras in the state last week.

He favors an amendment because the process to get an amendment requires a majority of voters to approve it after it passes the House and the Senate. Taylor said he was particularly miffed when the company that provides speed camera enforcement in Sioux City blamed a computer glitch for wrongly issuing red-light tickets instead of speeding tickets to 500 people then billing them for the difference last year.

"These are companies where we have to depend on the accuracy of their technology," he said. "It's the only thing they have, and it's not working."

The ban

Taylor acknowledges that his constitutional amendment proposal likely will take a back seat to the ban legislation being moved by Waterloo Republican Walt Rogers in the House.

His bill, HF2048, was introduced on Jan. 18 and has 22 co-sponsors in the House, including Taylor.

Rogers said the argument that speed and red-light cameras make roads safer is debatable. He said cities that use the tickets as source of revenue can lead to misuse, and he argues that there's something just too Big Brotherish for him to be completely comfortable with the idea.

"What we're talking about here are traffic misdemeanors in most cases and having cameras watching us wherever we go," he said. "As Iowans, is that something we really want?"

Tom Herrmann, communications director with Redflex Traffic Systems, said the cameras are a part of our everyday life.

"I'm sitting in an airport right now, and there are cameras all around me," he said when reached on his cell phone Thursday.

Lobbyists for Redflex and the city of Cedar Rapids were the only two registered against the bill as of Friday afternoon. Redflex has contracts to operate cameras in Davenport, Council Bluffs, Clive and Sioux City.

Herrmann points to studies, such as one done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in 2011, that found that the installation of red-light cameras reduced fatal accidents by 24 percent in 14 cities with camera programs, as evidence the cameras are worth the investment.

Previous proposals to ban the cameras have died in committee in the Iowa Senate.

Sen. Tom Rielly, D-Oskaloosa, who chairs the transportation committee, said he wasn't sure if he would call up the House version of the ban bill if it passes there or the Senate version of the bill put together by the Republicans.

"As a former mayor (of Oskaloosa), I'm very sensitive to the issue of local control," Rielly said. "Why does the mayor of Oskaloosa or Davenport or Sioux City need us telling them how they can enforce their traffic laws?"

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, who didn't support a ban last time the issue came up said last week he is willing to let the committee decide what it wants to do. He did, however, note that public sentiment may have shifted.

"People may have changed their minds. There are more of these cameras out there, so that obviously gets more people excited about them," he said. "I personally continue believe that if you don't want to get a ticket for running a stoplight, you probably should stop running stoplights."

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020. 

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"