Nevada's Busybody Legislature Rides Again

Nevada’s esteemed legislators have once again saddled up their noble steeds, donned their finest spurs, and galloped headlong into the grand enterprise of making more laws to fix laws that aren’t fixing anything. Two new bills, SB304 and SB309, have been introduced with much fanfare, promising to cure the scourge of drunken and drugged driving by—what else?—tinkering with the lawbooks.

Now, SB304 is a model of simplicity. It suggests that if a person in a drunken stupor kills someone with a vehicle, they might—just might—be charged with vehicular homicide, even if they haven’t been three times convicted. Such a novel concept, to be sure, as one might think that killing someone with a car while intoxicated would already be viewed dimly by the courts. But up to now, the law has been reluctant to call a spade a spade unless the driver’s thrice blessed by the criminal justice system.

SB309, however, is the true masterpiece of legal embroidery, weaving in all manner of new restrictions, definitions, and fine adjustments. It adds fentanyl and “Molly” to the forbidden elixirs of the road, jacks up fines from a mere $1,000 to a more respectable $3,000, and lowers the highest DUI threshold from 0.18 percent blood alcohol level to 0.16 percent—a change sure to be as effective as tightening the buckle on a broken belt. Meanwhile, the threshold for vehicular homicide goes from 0.08 percent to 0.10 percent, an adjustment reached by some esoteric arithmetic known only to legislators and their consultants.

The bill’s proud sponsor, Republican Sen. John Steinbeck–presumably, no relation to the famous author–has issued the usual solemn proclamations. He has seen too many tragic scenes in his long career as a firefighter and that Nevada’s DUI laws are deficient—though whether more laws will plug those holes or create new ones remains an open question.

One might wonder, dear reader, if the problem lies not in the quantity of laws but in their court enforcement. But such a notion would be too practical for a legislative body that must do something—whether it accomplishes anything.

And so, there will be a watch with bated breath as our lawmakers add yet another layer of legal varnish onto a system that is already as polished as a well-handled campaign donation.