Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, February 26, 1993 TAG: 9302260485
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
POLITICS ASIDE, PASS BOOZE-IT/LOSE-IT
BOOZE-IT, lose-it laws essentially, on-the-spot suspension of the driver's license of anyone stopped by police for driving under the influence - have proved among the most effective steps any state can take to reduce the carnage of drunken drivers. Thirty states have such laws, which have saved hundreds of lives.Moreover, courts have upheld the laws, saying they do not violate due-process rights and the presumption of innocence until proved guilty.
Virginia, it appears, soon will have such a law. Good. There are entirely too many drunks on the roads, and too many lives lost or mangled because of them. The state clearly needs to do more to discourage drunken driving, and the promise of swift and certain punishment is a logical start.
The operative word here, however, is appears.
It was just about a year ago that we were congratulating the Virginia House and Senate for passing so-called administrative license-revocation bills by sizable margins in each chamber.
But the bills had different provisions, and so could not be sent to the governor until the differences were reconciled. They fell victim to the political machinations that so often mark the last night of General Assembly sessions.
This year, the House and Senate again have passed booze-it, lose-it bills - again with different provisions. That means, again, that they're vulnerable to final-hour atrocities.
Supporters say chances for survival are much improved this session because - get this - Mary Sue Terry isn't around to take credit.
Indeed, in '92, then-Attorney General Terry made administrative license-revocation the centerpiece of her legislative package. Terry has been closely identified with efforts to combat drunken driving for nearly a decade.
But Terry also has been unofficially running for governor for nearly a decade. (In January, she resigned as attorney general to devote full-time to her now-official campaign.) Recently, Republican leaders in the assembly actually boasted how they'd drummed up last-minute opposition to the booze-it, lose-it measure in '92 - purposefully to deny Terry a legislative victory.
Said Senate Minority Leader Joe Benedetti of Richmond: "We were able to whip some people into a frenzy [last year] by saying, `She's out there twisting arms; let's teach her a lesson.' "
OK, Sen. Benedetti. Terry's no longer around. Neither are 42 nameless Virginians whose lives, it's estimated, would have been saved in '92 if a booze-it, lose-it bill had been passed last year.
So let's withhold congratulations until we see how this issue fares 'tween now and the wrap-up on Saturday. And if it passes, Mary Sue Terry still will deserve credit for promoting this sensible, life-saving measure.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1993