Conference committee fails to advance contested speeding-fines amendment to House Bill 1298

A conference committee on House Bill 1298 on Oct. 12 considered competing amendments that would change the state—ee schedule for speeding violations, add a study of the driver—itation point system and allow variable speed-limit signage and an 80 mph cap on some interstates, but two amendment proposals failed on tied roll calls.

The committee met to reconcile House and Senate versions of HB 1298 after lawmakers exchanged alternate amendment drafts. Chairman Koppelman said the House pproach "is basically $3 a mile with a minimum of a $20 fee," and that it included provisions on variable speed-limit signs, an 80 mph limit and a study of points and fees.

Why it matters: The proposals would change how speeding fines are calculated across posted speed bands, adjust the driver—s-license point schedule (subject to a future study), and shift enforcement incentives in both rural and urban areas.

Lawmakers debated two main amendment versions. Senator Rummel described his alternate draft as aiming "to avoid going back on 60 and 65 on our zones" and said his chart would move 60 and 65 mph into the higher-fee bucket. Representative Morton expressed broad opposition to many provisions, saying, "I really take issue with pretty much everything in this bill," and objected to points, fines and variable-speed signs. Senator Hogan urged emphasis on fees as a deterrent: "I think that the points are a deterrent to certain people, but they're not to everyone. Fees, I think, are a bigger deterrent."

Key provisions under discussion included a $3-per-mile scheme with a $20 minimum for many speed bands; a $5-per-mile level for highways posted above 65 mph; inclusion of variable speed-limit signs; and an option to raise the posted interstate maximum from 75 to 80 mph. Committee members also agreed to add study language to direct a review of the driver's license point system and the "traffic fee schedule in Chapter 30 9-06.1," with an August 1 reporting date for the interim committee that will receive the study.

The committee voted first on the amendment described in the record as the "Rummel" version (amendment 10). Clerk roll call recorded Chairman Koppelman, Representative Dressler and Representative Wharton voting No; Chairman Rummel, Senator Hogan and Senator Klein voting Yes. The motion failed on a 3-3 tie.

The committee then moved to the alternative (the "9" version) with corrected study language. That motion also failed on a 3-3 tie: Chairman Koppelman, Representative Dressler and Representative Wharton voted Yes; Chairman Rummel, Senator Hogan and Senator Klein voted No.

Lawmakers repeatedly said they wanted the study to inform future decisions rather than finalize the point schedule immediately. Committee members discussed whether the highway patrol, the Department of Transportation and local law enforcement should be involved in the study and agreed legislative management would assign the report to an interim committee.

The committee recessed and said it would reconvene at 11:30 for further work; no final conference agreement on HB 1298 was reached during the session.

Votes at a glance: Amendment 10 (Rummel version) to HB 1298 —sound: failed, roll call 3-3. Amendment 9 (House version with corrected study language) to HB 1298 —sound: failed, roll call 3-3.