Lawmaker Does U-Turn on Red Light Cameras

State Rep. Wayne Schmidt previously wanted to ban red light cameras, then wanted them, now not moving bill

By Anne Schieber Dykstra | September 11, 2013

The Michigan lawmaker sponsoring a bill authorizing red light cameras has made a U-turn on the issue.

Rep. Wayne Schmidt, R-Traverse City, who chairs the House Transportation Committee, last year co-sponsored a bill that would have banned red light cameras. This year, he sponsored a bill that would have brought red light cameras to traffic intersections across the state.

However, Rep. Schmidt said he has chosen not to move the red light authorization bill forward because of concerns he says he now has about traffic cameras and privacy issues. He made the revelation after Michigan Capitol Confidential inquired about his apparent flip-flop on the issue.

The Traverse City lawmaker said he had concerns last year about allowing red light cameras and that's why he signed on to ban them. That bill failed to make it out of committee, but this spring the he introduced House Bill 4763, which would do the opposite by giving permission to municipalities to use cameras on traffic lights.

He said he did not "flip-flop" on the issue.

"I was in a car wreck a number of years ago and traffic intersection safety is a big deal to me," he said. "If we were going to have a discussion about this, it made sense to put a bill out there to look at all the options."

He said hearings validated his original concerns about privacy and that's why he is dropping the most recent bill.

Red light cameras are an easy way for financially strapped municipalities to bring in revenue.

However, red light cameras are expensive to operate, costing about $5,000 a month to lease, said Jim Walker, executive director of the National Motorists Association. To pay for that expense, municipalities often have to widen the window of offenses. Cities and townships can do that by keeping the timing of yellow lights short and ticketing motorist who make rolling right turns on red lights, he said.

"Using safer, longer yellow intervals will almost always reduce violation rates far more than the cameras," he told lawmakers at a hearing on the matter. "Cameras take a year to drop violation rates by half. By adding seconds to the yellow, it will achieve a 60 to 90 percent drop in a few days."

In an op-ed in The Detroit News, Rep. Schmidt never mentioned concerns about privacy. He said his reasoning had all to do with safety.

"The frightening truth is red light runners are on the rise in Michigan," he wrote, pointing out that fatalities from red light runners have nearly tripled from 2011 to 2012. But a close look at the numbers shows the decrease had more to do with a quirk in statistics. Fatalities in 2011 dropped to 12 that year but the range has been from 22 to 32 over the past five years. In fact, red light running crashes with "hazardous action" dropped in 2012 from 5,078 to 5,031, while serious injuries were flat.

Manufacturers of red light cameras have a reputation for heavy lobbying in state capitols. It is not clear if sponsors of the bill have received any campaign support from red light camera manufacturers. Contributions do not have to be reported until the end of the year in an off-election year, according to the Michigan Secretary of State’s office.

Traverse City and Traverse County have been under financial pressure from unfunded pension liabilities, and revenue from red light cameras could provide some relief. However, Traverse City Manager Jered Ottenwess said he is not aware of any interest in installing the cameras.

All but one of the eight co-sponsors on the red light camera bill are Democrats from the Detroit area. In 2012, Rep. Schmidt sided mostly with Republicans from a broader geographic area to propose banning the cameras.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

Union's Specious Claim in Indiana RTW Case

Trying to use anti-slavery clause to deny worker freedom

By Patrick J. Wright | September 10, 2013

An Indiana county judge has held that the Hoosier state's right-to-work law is unconstitutional based on an Indiana constitutional provision that originated in 1816 and was meant to limit slavery.

Lake County Judge John Sedia, however, delayed implementation of the ruling until it could be appealed. The decision is almost certain to be overturned.

The suit was brought by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, AFL-CIO and some individuals. In essence, they argue that the duty of fair representation is the same thing as slavery. This is not the first time the plaintiffs have made such an outlandish claim, having earlier lost a similar case in federal court.

To understand this claim, a little labor law history is helpful.

Labor unions in both the federal Railway Labor Act and the National Labor Relations Act sought mandatory collective bargaining. Thus, the unions wanted control over every employee's wages and benefits, even if an individual employee wanted nothing to do with the union and wanted to negotiate their own deals.

Having been granted monopoly bargaining status by Congress, some unions then discriminated against black employees (who had been banned from union membership due to racism) during negotiations. In 1944, in the case of Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., a black railroad employee challenged a collective bargaining agreement that gave preference to white union employees over black nonunion employees. The United States Supreme Court recognized the "duty of fair representation" and held that "Once a craft or class has designated its representative, such representative is responsible under the law to act for all employees within the craft or class, those who are not members of the represented organizations, as well as those who are members."

Thus, unions cannot discriminate against anyone in the bargaining class, even those who choose to exercise their worker freedom rights.

In 1947, as part of the Taft-Hartley Act amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, right-to-work laws were permitted (they are still not allowed under the Railway Labor Act). Generally, right-to-work laws prohibit union security clauses that require a payment of dues or fees to the union as a condition of employment.

Indiana became a right-to-work state (for the second time) in 2012. Michigan became one in 2013. There are 22 other states that have enacted right-to-work laws.

One effect of a right-to-work law is that where unions have a monopoly on bargaining, individual members do not have to financially support the union unless they choose to. The unions call that "free riding" and have been opposed to the concept as long as right-to-work laws have existed.

Turning now to the claim presented in Indiana, the union is arguing that its duty of fair representation violates Article 1 section 21 of Indiana's constitution, the anti-slavery provision.

Indiana has had two constitutions: one in 1816 and the second in 1851. The 1816 anti-slavery provision (Article I, section 7) read: "That no man's particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives or without a just compensation being made therefor." Indiana enacted a second constitution in 1851 and the anti-slavery language (Article I, section 21) was changed to read: "No man's particular services shall be demanded, without just compensation." The language remains that way today.

The U.S. Constitution also contains an anti-slavery clause, the 13th Amendment, which was ratified in 1865 and reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States."

Right-to-work laws have been allowed since 1947, and the 13th Amendment was enacted in 1865. Yet, no court has held that the 13th Amendment excuses unions — which have been granted exclusive bargaining status — from having to provide the duty of fair representation. It is quite unlikely that Indiana's anti-slavery provision is any more potent than the 13th Amendment or that Indiana's Supreme Court will interpret it to be so. A reversal is almost certain.

This ruling may tempt unions to make a similar claim in Michigan. Michigan's constitution has its own anti-slavery provision, Article I section 9, which states, "Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of a crime, shall ever be tolerated in this state."

The involuntary government action that set up the conflict in the first place was the granting of monopoly bargaining status to unions. The racism of some unions is what triggered the creation of the duty of fair representation. It is quite unlikely that anti-slavery provisions will successfully be used to challenge right-to-work.

Patrick J. Wright is senior legal analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation.