Gov. Janet Napolitano has vetoed a bill that would lower the penalty for those caught drinking and driving for the first time and increase the punishments for others.
Supporters of the bill were surprised and upset at the governor’s move. They charged that Napolitano instead has made last year’s legislation, which earned the state the title of having the toughest DUI statues in the country, vulnerable to court challenge.
They also contend that by vetoing the bill because of one provision, the governor is effectively taking a stand against its other provisions, which would have enhanced Arizona’s drinking and driving laws.
Napolitano rejected H2396 April 29, because it sought to reduce the ignition-interlock requirement for first-time offenders to six months from one year if certain requirements were met, even though the current interlock law was enacted less than a year ago.
“I join with Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and Students Against Drunk Drivers in their belief that requirements to use ignition-interlock devices have a deterrent effect on the decision to drive under the influence,” she said. “Some disagree and believe the penalty is too harsh and the benefit to public safety is too low. No one can be sure because the law is so new.”
In response to the veto, one lawmaker discussed the possibility of an override.
But Napolitano said it would be “premature” to change the law before the state has had the chance to examine its effects.
Under H2395, an offender must successfully complete an alcohol- or drug-treatment program and must not have any interlock violations — registering a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit when they blow into the device, for example — for at least six months in order to receive permission to remove the interlock.
Sen. Linda Gray of Glendale, who first introduced interlock legislation to Arizona about a decade ago, said the veto was a slap in the face of the family of a police officer killed by a drunk driver two years ago.
The veto arrived on the second anniversary of Officer Rob Targosz’s death, Gray said, noting that Targosz’s wife, Brigitte, had testified in support of the vetoed bill.
“There were so many good things in there,” Gray said. “I would have hoped that all the good in this bill would have taken us three steps forward, instead of this half step back.”
Gray felt that the governor ignored the conditions set in the bill before a first-time offender could get the interlock requirement reduced to six months. Gray noted that one of the provisions of the bills would have added death to the list of reasons the Motor Vehicle Division is required to impose a 90-day suspension of a driver’s license, following an administrative determination that the driver was above the legal limit.
House Speaker Jim Weiers, sponsor of the bill, echoed Gray’s arguments.
The legislation would only allow a reduction of the interlock requirement under specific conditions, he said. That would have been an incentive for offenders to change their driving behavior, he said. 
“The common-sense approach to this is you want to change people’s habits from drinking and driving,” Weiers said. “The whole idea is asking people to change the way they are doing things, not simply by putting more interlocks on cars,” he said.
Sen. Jim Waring of Phoenix shared Gray’s and Weiers’ disappointment.
But Waring said he did not like the six-month reduction of the interlock requirement, though he felt the compromise was worth it, given the conditions put in place before an offender could get the reduced penalty, and given the bill’s other provisions. 
“I’m not sure the governor understands that a lawsuit could wipe out all the gains from last year because of the discrepancy between the two bills,” he said, referring to the conflict in language of current law.
Waring partly blamed Weiers for the fate of the DUI bill.
Waring maintained that the handful of DUI bills he and Gray authored initially would have gotten through and been signed by the governor on their own. Instead, some of the bills were assigned to three committees in the House, greatly reducing their chances of success. The language of the bills was later consolidated into one text, and adopted as a strike-everything amendment to H2395.
“All this is because things are made more complicated in the House than they need to be,” Waring said. “Ultimately though, the responsibility for this veto lies with the governor. She is the one who had the final say. If this gets thrown out in court because we lose one of these lawsuits… whose fault is that?”   
Waring is mulling an amendment that would contain the fix to the conflict in existing statute.  
The vetoed bill would have:
• Increased penalties for operating a watercraft while intoxicated, bringing some parity between driving a motor vehicle and operating a watercraft.
• Fixed a discrepancy in statute that arose from the passage of the DUI bills last year.
• Required DUI offenders to submit to alcohol screening, education and treatment before a suspended license will be returned.
• Expanded the circumstances in which a police officer may serve a license-suspension order.
While the bill would have reduced the interlock requirement for first-time offenders, it would have increased it for more serious offenders. A conviction of aggravated DUI would have meant two years of the ignition interlock. A conviction of a DUI while a minor 15 years old or under is in the vehicle also would have meant two years of the interlock.
Alberto Gutier, lobbyist for the interlock industry, said he has mixed feelings about the veto. Even with the reduced penalty for first time offenders, Gutier felt the bill’s other provisions were a step forward.
The interlock industry is against the bill, he said, because his clients felt there was not enough time given to see the effect of last year’s law.
The Arizona Licensed Beverage Association was disappointed with the veto.
The group had worked with Gray and Weiers on the vetoed legislation, and some of their concerns had been addressed, chief of them their strong opposition to imposing the ignition interlock on first-time DUI offenders, which ALBA had called draconian. 
ALBA lobbyist Don Isaacson reiterated that the law approved last year was brought about as a floor amendment in the state House. It was not heard in committee and, therefore, was not vetted like most other measures.
“There was no analysis done at the time it was added last year,” he said.
Isaacson argued that studies conducted outside the state showed that the ignition interlock was effective for repeat offenders. “It’s not particularly effective for the first DUI offender because they already don’t re-offend. We thought we had arguments and analysis on our side,” he said, adding the governor got it wrong with her veto.
Isaacson also said they would have wanted to see some difference in the degree of penalties between a first-time offender, and a repeat or extreme offender, which the vetoed legislation would have done.