Legislative Update – Get Involved! Week of Feb 8

The legislative session is in full swing, and our representatives are busy debating bills related to photo enforcement. It’s important and easy that you get involved to let your representatives know how you feel! This is a summary of what’s going on in committee for the rest of this week. There are three things you can do:

1. Contact your senators and representatives and let them know how you feel about each of these bills.
2. Show up at a committee hearing, request to speak, and tell them how you feel.
3. If you can’t make it, register on the Request to Speak system, login, and log your support or opposition.

Feb 10, SHR3, 9:00am, Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee

  • Expands photo enforcement to include identifying violations related to a) certificates of title and registration and b) vehicle insurance and financial responsibility.
  • Photo enforcement system cannot be placed within 600 feet of a posted speed limit change except for school crossings.
  • A speed limit sign must be placed between the two photo enforcement warning signs.
  • Violations must be for at least 11+mph over limit, except school and construction zones.
  • If a person responds to a notice or citation within 30 days, points will not be assessed to the person’s license.
  • Requires an annual report on the state photo enforcement program
  • Local authorities shall spend at least 35% of all net photo enforcement money on law enforcement purposes.
  • Photo violations must be filed within 120 days of the alleged violation (currently 60).
  • NOV’s may be issued before a complaint is filed in court
  • NOV’s and complaints are not required to be mailed to the person charged with the violation
  • The penalty is to be $165 not subject to any surcharge , but the board of supervisors may establish a processing fee.
  • 35% of all money received shall go to the police safety equipment fund.
  • Stipulates that this section does not restrict MVD from refusing to renew a vehicle’s registration if the owner is delinquent in paying a fine for a traffic violation or fails to appear in a criminal traffic case.

Note: While there are a few desirable measures, there are some very BAD measures included here.

This is a proposed ballot initiative. If this passes, it will be on the ballot for voters this fall.

  • Repeals the state photo enforcement system.
  • Prohibits photo enforcement systems from being used on state highways to detect violators of speed restrictions.
  • Makes conforming changes.
  • Requires the Secretary of State to submit the proposition to the voters at the next general election.
  • Becomes effective if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor.

CF Stance: FOR
Note: The CameraFraud ballot initiative is different in that it eliminates ALL photo enforcement programs in Arizona, not just the state (DPS) program.

This is a proposed ballot initiative. If this passes, it will be on the ballot for voters this fall.
This is a ballot initiative version of SB1443



38 Responses to Legislative Update – Get Involved! Week of Feb 8

  1. photoradarscam says:

    Ch 5’s news story tonight was bogus. They “did research” but they only went half way. Why did they just compare 2006 and 2008? Why just two months, Nov & Dec? They reported an 11% drop in volume, and then implied that crashes normally would decline by the same percentage, which isn’t true at all – the relationship isn’t 1 to 1. And then they gave NO credit to changes like the new DUI laws or teen driving restrictions, and made no comparison to states like Nevada that saw similar safety improvements.

    • LoneWolf says:

      We’ve also had less undocumented immigrants on the road because of tougher laws like employer sanctions and the tightening of the border. And how do they accurately measure traffic? Road conditions? Road construction? And what about the widening of some of our freeways and the re-engineering of hazardous stretches? Thanks to their bogus research, they may have brainwashed a few more people… Makes me wonder if these guys are on Redflex’s payroll now too or if they even graduated from a school of investigative reporting and journalism.

    • photoradarscam says:

      Excellent, that’s a good one. I was too late to get today’s Rules committee meeting agenda on here.

    • B says:

      That’s as far as it’ll go – it, and any other anti-photo radar bills will never see the light of day beyond the Rules Committee in the House.

      The real problem: Kirk Adams.

      Ultimately he decides what bills will make it to the floor for a full house vote to finally pass a bill onto the Senate, and he is pro-camera (and GOP – weird combo).

      He shoved Sam Crump’s bill into the round file last year after promising him a full floor vote. Expect more of the same from him.

      Bottom line: As long as Kirk Adams is the Speaker of the House and doesn’t have a major change of heart, the Legislature from our POV is a ultimately a waste of time other than a chance to voice our dismay at hearings.

      It’s all in our hands to get the prop on the ballot.

      The only thing we could do is put a HUGE press on the Speaker with correspondence to get him to at least let these come to a vote, but the odds of that having any effect are slim to none, depending on how much lobbying there is from the other side.

    • B, last year was a little unique in that there were very few bills that saw the floor due to the budget. This year should be different. I don’t want to count it all as a lost cause, because maybe some political wrangling could get Adams to change his mind.

      • B says:

        I agree about the strain the budget issues put on all of the legislators last year. They were all really frustrated that the problems couldn’t be solved and completed, and that kept their own pet bills on the shelves.

        However, what I’m saying about Rep. Crump’s bill and how it was buried came from the representative himself. He was promised it would go to a full House vote, and the “House leadership” waffled on him.

        I hope I’m wrong, and you’re right, but based on Kirk Adams’s comments about the cameras, and what Rep. Crump told me, he’s the logjam.

        If any anti-camera bills come to a full House floor vote for final approval in 2010 (and beyond) as long as Adams is running the show, I’ll be absolutely floored.

    • kandaris says:

      Wow… Wow. I’m just stunned. In this piece KPHO didn’t even make an attempt at the appearance of impartiality. That piece was complete propaganda. Comparing the years 2006 to 2008 in which the cameras had only barely been rolled out and during a huge economic downturn with higher gas prices as well as the huge statistical mistake of assumption of causation is criminal. An 11% decrease in traffic volume could absolutely be responsible for the drop in accidents as there is not a 1 to 1 relationship between the drop in traffic volume to that drop’s effect on overall traffic. They also failed to mention that Nevada with a comparable population and no speed cameras saw a very similar drop in accidents. They should be ashamed of themselves.

  2. Dylan R. says:

    More future unemployed state politicians.. coming soon. Vote them all out, black-list them, and call them out for the scumbags they are.

  3. Dr Jett says:

    Does anyone have the actual statistics about “the research data” Ch 5 used to respond to them and ask for equal time. Kandaris and Photoradarscam seem to know the most about the situation. Let me know if you need help contacting Ch 5 to see if they are willing to continue the story with a new update that can clarify their previous incomplete version?

    • No, I don’t have the data and neither does KPHO. That’s the problem… I suspect they rushed the story to air before they got all of the data. Just amazing they compare 2006 to 2008 and ignore 2007 and 2009… and then just look at 2 months of data… And why just the I-10 corridor? It’s clear to me that KPHO made the best with what they had, and the person in charge of the story didn’t put much effort into going beyond the numbers provided by DPS.

      I think most viewer caught this “data selectivity” and are taking it with a grain of salt.

      I encourage all to go to the CBS website, click on Contact, and send a few messages to them and let them know that you weren’t fooled and their “telling it like it is” line is BS.

  4. John Gault says:

    —–Original Message—–
    From: JKing@azdps.gov [mailto:JKing@azdps.gov]
    Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:02 PM
    To: Steve Gonzales – MCJCX
    Subject: FYI on Criminal speed

    Due in part to resource management issues, effective 2/10/2010 at 0001
    hours, we will issue only civil NOV/Cites regardless of the speed. We will
    no longer issue criminal photo enforcement citations except where the
    violation involves our super speeder criteria (typically speeds above 105
    and involves recklessness). Any criminal citations issued up to that time
    will continue as usual. If the County Atty chooses to reduce them to
    civil DPS will leave it up to them.

    Lieutenant Jeff A. King
    Photo Enforcement District Commander
    Arizona Department of Public Safety
    Office 602-271-7421
    Cell 602-980-3470 (Blackberry)

  5. Steve D says:

    Just got my new election form in the mail today due to moving

    cant wait to vote out anybody who is in favor of the speed cams.

    Lucky for me I am on a ton of local car club websites and as soon as this is ready I plan to let everybody I can know who voted for the cams so we can get the out of office asap!

  6. Stacey says:

    Poor DPS, they have been trying to get their hands on that photo radar money since 2005:


    Phoenix, AZ
    1,122 Volunteers

    Welcome to CameraFRAUD. We are united in our effort to get rid of every speed camera, red light camera, and photo radar van here in Arizona and across the country. We were suc…

    Check out this Meetup Group →

  7. Steve says:

    One good way to show that we mean business is to vote out all of the legislators who brought the state photo radar program upon us in the first place. The links below are of old lists and many of those legislators have already been voted out but these lists are also the original lists of those infamous individuals who brought this whole photo radar mess upon the state highways in the first place. We need to make sure to not give any of them any political forgiveness, no matter what good things they might have done since then. If after the next vote, nearly all of these legislators (who voted yes on photo radar to begin with) are gone, voting yes on photo radar in Arizona might come to be known as political suicide for law makers.

    Find out who your representatives are, and then vote no for those individuals in the next election. If they changed their mind and now are against photo radar, I would vote them out any way. They work for us. If you hurt your employer badly enough, you’re gone. In this case, they’ll be gone.



  8. Steve says:

    I just noticed that Kirk Adams was listed against photo radar in the original vote. We certainly don’t him to keep his office now. I guess we’ll have to reivew each person who voted against phoro radar on these lists to make sure they haven’t changed their position since then.

  9. B says:

    Good luck to any of you speaking today at the hearing (I can’t make it today).

    Please don’t go into a rant and sound like a radical. Be calm, cool, and collected while voicing your strong opposition with facts and statistics.

    You have to play the Jay Heiler card here – the fake, soothesayer – without the “truthiness” he employs.

    I want to be there and call out the DPS and Redflex reps that will be there for being half-truth spin doctors. I’d turn and look them in the eye and call them out directly in front of the committee for intentionally twisting the truth around to convince a skeptical public into putting on these chains… They – ESPECIALLY the DPS – need to be chastised verbally with FACTS.

    Again – good luck.

  10. RPr says:



    only Sylvia Allen and AL Melvin are against the cameras

    Pro Photo Radar
    Manuel V. “Manny” Alvarez
    David Braswell
    Linda Gray
    Leah Landrum Taylor
    Rebecca Rios

  11. the_insider says:

    Today, ATS held a mandatory all-hands meeting for its IT group. The purpose of this meeting was twofold; the first, to formally announce the moving of the IT group to the South building.

    The second purpose was to pressure all employees to write heavily coached letters to their legislators in support of the cameras.

    The employees were coached in what to write by the firm’s legal counsel, who also demanded all letters be given to him for vetting, instead of being mailed out by the employees on their own. Employees were also given a list of topics NOT to include in the letters, provided on a whiteboard for everyone’s convenience. At least one employee made written protest of their treatment at the meeting.

    The corruption and arrogance of these firms, ATS in particular, is astounding.

  12. Raymond says:

    Wow, were they telling them what to write?? Is it a case of jobs in jeopardy if they refuse to do this???

    • the_insider says:


      It was made quite clear that the operations group had complied with their demands, and was in turn considered “good employees.” Employees who asked questions were pulled aside and given a “talking to” to help them understand the importance of writing these letters.

      I do not know of any direct threats of termination, but, as I said, at least one employee made their displeasure with what they felt was employee intimidation known in writing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: