Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Fees Diversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee holds bill changing transmission of defensive‑driving fees to allow payment‑plan access
Summary
House Bill 2453, which would change how defensive‑driving program fees and surcharges are transmitted and bar vendors affiliated with defensive‑driving schools, was held for a week after testimony raised access concerns for low‑income defendants; sponsor absent and stakeholders to propose language.
House Bill 2453, which would require courts or court-contracted vendors (rather than defensive‑driving schools) to transmit certain surcharges and fees and would bar payment processors contracted by courts from being affiliated with defensive‑driving schools, was held by the Arizona House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Committee staff Luca explained that the bill would require the court of record or a vendor contracted by the court (rather than a defensive‑driving school) to transmit the surcharge to the state treasurer and the defensive‑driving school fee to the Supreme Court. The bill also would remove the requirement that defensive‑driving schools transmit the diversion fee to the court and would prohibit contracted vendors from being affiliated with defensive‑driving schools.
Mike Williams, who said he represented himself and had previously worked on online defensive‑driving legislation, testified that current practice forces defensive‑driving schools to collect all fees up front and that practice prevents some low‑income defendants from accessing diversion programs because they cannot afford the upfront cost. Williams said the result is that some people plead guilty and accept points on their record rather than enter diversion.
Williams asked the committee to allow courts to set up payment plans so that low‑income defendants can participate in diversion programs without paying the full fee up front. He told the committee the courts would be willing to support a delayed effective date to allow reprogramming of court systems. The sponsor, Representative Marshall, was not present at the hearing.
After testimony, the committee chair said he would hold HB 2453 for another week to let stakeholders propose alternative language. The transcript records the committee will "hold HB 2453, and we'll share any amendments that come forward." No final vote was taken in the committee during the recorded proceedings.
The committee asked the sponsor's office and stakeholders to consider language that would permit courts to offer payment plans or otherwise avoid making diversion programs unavailable to people of limited means. The committee did not adopt or reject the bill; it was held pending potential amendments.
