Technically, the federal government won’t regulate what happens when you are caught driving drunk. They won’t write the drunk driving laws used to prosecute people in various states across the country—that’s the business of the states. But, that’s technically. Though they won’t write or enforce those particular laws where states have clear jurisdiction they will tell the states exactly what needs to be in them. They’ll do it by threatening them where it matters most—in the pocketbook.
That’s exactly what’s happening right now as 14 states are set to be penalized by the federal government, restricted in how they use federal highway grants because their laws aren’t up to the standards the feds would like to see.
According to USA Today, last year 19 states were penalized. So between then and now, five states complied with the demands for stricter drunk driving laws. Those remaining 14 will be limited to spending federal highway money—a combined $539 million of it—on anti-drunken driving programs and highway safety improvements, money they could have otherwise spent as they saw fit, on various construction projects.
You would think for the federal government to force states to spend their money on drunk driving programs, those states must be really screwing things up in regards to drunk driving enforcement. You would be wrong. The states have written laws that they believe address the drunk driving problems in their area—laws that work for them.
For instance, Indiana changed its drunken driving law in 2004 for repeat offenders. The feds don’t think the new law requires enough community service, so they are holding back the cash. In addition, the feds allege Indiana’s open container law isn’t strict enough—even though they approved it in only 2005.
“For NHTSA to now claim non-compliance and immediately transfer funds is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious,” said the chief of staff at the Indiana Department of Transportation, Troy Woodruff. “INDOT has at all times reasonably believed that state laws complied with federal requirements and budgeted accordingly.”
Similar opposition in regards to the feds action is coming from Montana, Iowa, and South Dakota, to name a few. A few of these states have found a loophole in the feds’ monetary restrictions and end up using the money as they see fit, and therefore ignoring the federal government’s heavy hand.
They do this by using the money in a way that benefits “highway safety”. In other words, if they want to use the money on a construction project, they simply have to come up with a safety justification.
Historically, this has been the way the Feds do things. Requiring compliance with the .08% BAC per se standard of impairment got all the states in line. National anti-drunk driving lobbyists like MADD clearly have a strong hand in this.
It isn’t clear if the federal government has any plans on closing this loophole. However, in the meantime they will continue to pressure and push states into harsher and harsher DUI laws, regardless of their effectiveness.
About David Matson