REP. PORTER'S DRIVING LAW

Taking The 'Jessica Williams' Campaign Nationwide Would Be A Mistake

Like most freshman House members, Nevada Rep. Jon Porter's legislative
resume is pretty thin. Few first-termers can boast that they've sponsored a
host of bills which survived the congressional sausage-grinder.

But the Boulder City Republican may soon claim a victory, of sorts: He has
introduced a bill that would take the "Jessica Williams" law national. The
proposal would withhold between 1 percent and 50 percent of the federal
highway funds from any state that refuses to adopt a separate DUI law
punishing drivers who are drugged, in addition to those who have alcohol in
their systems.

As a state senator, Mr. Porter championed the Nevada bill that makes it
illegal to drive with even trace elements of certain controlled substances
in the bloodstream, regardless of whether or not you are actually
"impaired." This law was used to penalize Ms. Williams, who in 2000 fell
asleep while driving and killed six teens who were picking up trash along
Interstate 15. While that bill now faces a test before the Nevada Supreme
Court, where it may be overturned due to its vagueness, Rep. Porter wants
to damn the torpedoes and move his crusade to the national stage.

But Rep. Porter's approach goes awry in part because it potentially creates
criminals out of drivers whose motor skills have not been compromised.
Instead, their guilt could be determined solely by the detection of any
illegal drugs in the bloodstream -- levels that could be detected days
after a person had actually ingested the substance.

Remember, Ms. Williams was not convicted of drug possession. Nor was she
cited for vehicular manslaughter, her actual offense. She was instead
convicted of driving with a prohibited substance in her blood -- even
though a jury found her not to have been impaired -- and received a
Draconian sentence of between 18 and 48 years in prison.

Clearly, Ms. Williams deserved to be punished for her actions. But there
has not been even the slightest effort by supporters of this law to present
any scientific nexus between the zero-tolerance standard Rep. Porter
imposed in Nevada and the average driver's ability to safely operate a
motor vehicle.

Even putting aside such rational objections, by getting Washington involved
in another effort to blackmail the states, Rep. Porter betrays the very
principles for which he and his party supposedly stand.

After all, Rep. Porter has never hesitated to complain about the arrogance
of Washington in steamrolling Nevada on Yucca Mountain, and rightly so. But
how can he then be taken seriously if he wishes to use the power of the
federal purse to extort other states into passing drugged driving prohibitions?

Every state punishes motorists who drive while demonstrating actual signs
of impairment. That is a righteous cause. But mandating that the states
adopt standards -- potentially with no identifiable relationship to actual
impairment, at that -- is not the role of Washington politicians or
bureaucrats ... and Mr. Porter's constituents should let him know that.