Thursday, March 11, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Rep. Porter's driving law

Taking the 'Jessica Williams' campaign nationwide would be a mistake

Like most freshman House members, Nevada Rep. Jon Porter's legislative resume is pretty thin. Few first-termers can boast that they've sponsored a host of bills which survived the congressional sausage-grinder.

But the Boulder City Republican may soon claim a victory, of sorts: He has introduced a bill that would take the "Jessica Williams" law national. The proposal would withhold between 1 percent and 50 percent of the federal highway funds from any state that refuses to adopt a separate DUI law punishing drivers who are drugged, in addition to those who have alcohol in their systems.

As a state senator, Mr. Porter championed the Nevada bill that makes it illegal to drive with even trace elements of certain controlled substances in the bloodstream, regardless of whether or not you are actually "impaired." This law was used to penalize Ms. Williams, who in 2000 fell asleep while driving and killed six teens who were picking up trash along Interstate 15. While that bill now faces a test before the Nevada Supreme Court, where it may be overturned due to its vagueness, Rep. Porter wants to damn the torpedoes and move his crusade to the national stage.

But Rep. Porter's approach goes awry in part because it potentially creates criminals out of drivers whose motor skills have not been compromised. Instead, their guilt could be determined solely by the detection of any illegal drugs in the bloodstream -- levels that could be detected days after a person had actually ingested the substance.

Remember, Ms. Williams was not convicted of drug possession. Nor was she cited for vehicular manslaughter, her actual offense. She was instead convicted of driving with a prohibited substance in her blood -- even though a jury found her not to have been impaired -- and received a Draconian sentence of between 18 and 48 years in prison.

Clearly, Ms. Williams deserved to be punished for her actions. But there has not been even the slightest effort by supporters of this law to present any scientific nexus between the zero-tolerance standard Rep. Porter imposed in Nevada and the average driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Even putting aside such rational objections, by getting Washington involved in another effort to blackmail the states, Rep. Porter betrays the very principles for which he and his party supposedly stand.

After all, Rep. Porter has never hesitated to complain about the arrogance of Washington in steamrolling Nevada on Yucca Mountain, and rightly so. But how can he then be taken seriously if he wishes to use the power of the federal purse to extort other states into passing drugged driving prohibitions?

Every state punishes motorists who drive while demonstrating actual signs of impairment. That is a righteous cause. But mandating that the states adopt standards -- potentially with no identifiable relationship to actual impairment, at that -- is not the role of Washington politicians or bureaucrats ... and Mr. Porter's constituents should let him know that.