This is the final installment of our four-part Legislative Roundup series, which offers an in-depth analysis of each core area of FFJC’s reform efforts including: debt-based driver’s license restrictions, state and local fee elimination, ability-to-pay practices, and automated traffic enforcement. This series will prepare advocates to take on the upcoming legislative session more energized, informed, and better equipped to fight for justice. Missed the last post? Read it here.
Finally, how 2025 automated traffic enforcement policies are undermining traffic safety, economic stability, and equity.
As jurisdictions have grappled with growing concerns over traffic safety and the role of police officers in traffic enforcement, there has been a proliferation of new legislation supporting or authorizing automated traffic enforcement (ATE) systems. In 2025, the influx of ATE bills continued. Despite evidence that fines, in and of themselves, have little to no effect on behavior, all forms of ATE presently used: red light cameras, speed cameras, stop sign cameras, and school bus stop cameras, lead to the imposition of fines and a wide range of fees. By using payment as the metric by which jurisdictions measure successful enforcement, fine-based ATE has cleared the pathway for revenue generation, rather than safety, to become the focus of traffic safety reforms.
FFJC advocates for a safe-systems approach to traffic safety that minimizes income inequities and deprioritizes enforcement. We believe that focusing on nonfinancial sanctions and improved infrastructure, design, and engineering is what creates safer roadways and increased overall public safety. The complexity of ATE systems and the myriad of concerns they raise, make it challenging to categorize bills as good or bad. But there are a number of elements that, if present in a bill, demonstrate a true intention of improving safety, rather than raising revenue, and reducing the harms caused by fine-based traffic enforcement. These include: prioritizing non-financial sanctions, developing graduated sanctions or responses, assessing fines so that they are proportionate to an individual’s ability to pay, designating revenue generated to discretionary one-time expenses, and investing in infrastructure before implementing or expanding ATE.
There were a few bills introduced this session that showed some alignment with FFJC’s guidance, including bills requiring warnings before issuing tickets and implementing graduated sanctions. Examples include: Maryland’s HB 349, which established a fee schedule for traffic violations caught by automated speed cameras based on how far above the speed limit the driver was traveling. In each category, the bill increased the fine amount slightly, which reflects an understanding of a sliding scale approach based on offense. Oregon’s HB 2189, would have added a provision requiring that every driver caught speeding or running a red light must first receive a warning before being issued a citation. That bill died in committee, however. While positive, neither of these bills contemplate the individual’s financial circumstances when setting the fine. Meaningful ability-to-pay assessments are critical to establishing fairness and equity in traffic sanctions.
But overwhelmingly jurisdictions continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding or appreciation for the ineffectiveness of, and harms created by, revenue-generating traffic enforcement. In 2025, jurisdictions introduced bills promoting new, unproven types of technologies, made efforts to expand existing fine-based systems, and increased fines for what can only be viewed as a veiled attempt to generate revenue. FFJC observed states led by Democrats introduce ATE bills at a rate of nearly 3 times those led by Republicans, with the majority seeking to expand ATE. Among those introduced in Republican-led states, there seemed to be a mix of bills seeking to both expand and restrict ATE. Although the number of ATE bills introduced this session is alarming, a much smaller number advanced to become law. We applaud the efforts of advocates and lawmakers who have fought back against efforts to use technology that further entrenches income inequities through fines and fees.
One major victory this session came in Nevada, where advocates defeated SB 415, which would have allowed for automated traffic enforcement in the state. Advocates stood firmly against this cash grab, armed with the understanding that when enforcement is driven by revenue, safety takes a back seat and low-income communities are left to pay the price. FFJC encourages advocates and policymakers to demand legislation that includes protections against the harms of expanding or implementing fine-based ATE programs.
Among the bills that increased automatic traffic camera fines this year were Washington SB 5801, which was enacted and increased the penalty for a first speed safety camera violation to $125 from $0. As an example of the complexity of ATE legislation, while Maryland’s HB 349, which was also enacted this session, does introduce sanctions that are graduated based on the offending behavior, the maximum fine for speeding on a particular highway in Prince George’s County, MD has now been set at, $425, a significant increase. This increase was added, despite research that shows that increases in traffic fines do not coincide with greater deterrence. Further and equally as problematic, Maryland’s new law has no process for determining an individual’s ability to pay that extremely costly fine. This combination of factors indicates both the desire to address traffic safety, and the use of ineffective tools to do so, as legislatures adopt options that cause harm, disproportionately punish lower-income individuals and further entrench them in inescapable debt. Of the currently available ATE technologies, only speed cameras have produced any evidence, though limited, of effectiveness for improving driving behavior. As such many advocates recommend limiting ATE to speed cameras, or speed safety systems, only. Even the US Department of Transportation limits its recommendations on ATE specifically to speed enforcement, noting the research on other forms of ATE is mixed or inconclusive. This session Missouri’s HB 658 would have prohibited the use of automated photo red light enforcement systems, but it did not receive a hearing. Louisiana‘s efforts to prohibit any use of red-light cameras, was lost through amendments and not included in the final version of SB 99. Hawaii passed a bill HB 235 doing the opposite – directing the Department of Transportation to expand red light cameras. Fortunately, Governor Josh Green vetoed that bill.
Emerging Issues
School Bus Stop Cameras
The introduction of technologies that have not been proven by researchers to effectively improve safety, while exponentially increasing the imposition of fines and fees on drivers, remains very concerning to FFJC. This year saw a number of jurisdictions focus on the installation and implementation of cameras designed to detect and ticket people who fail to stop for buses. Though the safety goals of such enforcement are understandable, serious concerns still exist as to the reliability and efficacy of such systems. In Rhode Island HB 5421/SB 568 now requires all new school buses to be equipped with live school bus violation detection monitoring systems by July 1, 2027, and requires that all new and used buses have monitoring systems installed by July 1, 2032. Other jurisdictions like Texas, who introduced several bills, and Vermont (HB 304) also introduced bills that would have required school bus cameras and permitted the issuance of violations based on images from those cameras, but neither advanced. Like other forms of ATE, these cameras are not technologically flawless and may result in drivers being wrongly ticketed. A 2023 review of Pennsylvania’s Automated School Bus Enforcement Program revealed that 56 percent of contested school bus camera tickets were overturned. In Hillsborough County, Florida, following the implementation of new school bus cameras, violations were issued without a legal process for drivers to defend themselves against a citation.
Speed Intelligence Devices
Another trend in driving safety technology emerged this year in legislative efforts: an increase in bills authorizing Speed Intelligence Devices as a way to punish drivers for speeding. Although these are not a ticket-issueing enforcement system, they do impose extra financial sanctions on drivers. These devices, which courts can order to be installed in cars at the driver’s expense, make it impossible for the car to go above a certain speed. Because there are costs associated with installation, which are often unregulated, their existence is alarming and potentially problematic, beyond the safety and surveillance concerns raised by some advocates. Virginia HB 2096 grants the court discretion to enroll a driver in the Intelligent Speed Assistance Program upon conviction of reckless driving as an alternative to suspending the person’s driver’s license. Washington’s HB 1596 creates the option to apply for a new restricted driver’s license when a person’s license is suspended for the accumulation of too many moving violations or for reckless driving, and in which excessive speed was a factor in the offense; the use of an intelligent speed assistance device is a condition of having the new restricted driver’s license. The bill requires that the driver pay the costs of installing, removing, and leasing the device in addition to a monthly fee.
More globally, this a sign of the continued development and use of new technology to monitor and impose financial sanctions and costs that advocates should be cognizant of and prepared for. While “super-speeding” that rises to the level of reckless driving is the kind of dangerous driving that traffic enforcement should focus on, the use of tools such as speed intelligence devices come with a steep, potentially financially crippling, price tag for many families. Safety is of critical importance, yet unpayably high costs will disproportionately disadvantage lower-income families and shift the focus from safety to payment, making us all less safe. These programs should be state-funded, not driver-funded, to ensure that safety and access are available to all.
Other Fine and Fee related bills
Encouraging Bills on Data Collection, Transparency and Study Groups
This session a number of states made efforts to address issues around the lack of data and transparency of court fines and fees. Without data and transparency, policymakers can’t fully understand the harm these systems cause — let alone fix them. Virginia passed HB 1665 which requires the court clerk, upon request, to provide an itemized statement of fines and fees owed in any traffic, criminal or juvenile case, as well as an updated statement of a person’s outstanding balances or payment history upon request. Additionally, an important bill was filed in Kentucky, HB 744, to increase transparency into the fines and fees assessed and collected in the state. While it did not advance this year, a recent report from the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy makes it clear how critical this bill is, and FFJC will join state partners there in supporting it next session.
Three states also created task forces or required studies to assess the impact of fines and fees in their respective states and make recommendations for reform. Arkansas SB 575 creates the Justice System Fee Task Force to study and make recommendations regarding the “excessive number of fees on individuals charged with or convicted of crimes or otherwise involved in the justice system[.]” In addition to eliminating counsel fees and supervision fees, North Dakota’s HB 1417 requires the state’s Legislative Management office to conduct an interim study of fines and fees. Finally, Alabama HJR 163 creates a commission to study court costs and make recommendations for more uniformity throughout the state. FFJC’s work with partners in states like Delaware has shown that fines task forces can lead to meaningful progress on fines and fees reform. Collecting data and evidence while more deeply understanding the problem of fines and fees in a jurisdiction can create an effective and meaningful path forward for reform in a state. Using these opportunities, FFJC will offer the support needed to help researchers lay the foundation for bold fines and fees reform in the future.
Other notable bills
Intended as a disciplinary tool, tickets and fines could be issued to students for municipal code violations or other offenses – including truancy or “disturbing the peace” – that took place in school, during school hours, on school grounds. The harms of fines and fees for youth have been well documented for their limited ability to improve behavior, while triggering the beginning of, or prolonging, system involvement as a result of their inability to pay these unaffordable fines. One notable reform in Illinois during the 2025 session was the enactment of SB 1519, which ended school based ticketing in the state.
In Wisconsin, Governor Evers vetoed legislation, AB 87, that would have allowed the state to prohibit formerly incarcerated people with unpaid fines and fees from voting. Despite having completed their sentences and meeting all supervision requirements, voter disenfranchisement is another way fines and fees are used to create barriers for people with limited access to financial resources.
This session, the Council of the District of Columbia passed legislation making a step toward expanding opportunity, fairness, and economic stability for residents of DC. The bill ending automatic occupational and business licensing denials for workers with unpaid traffic fines and fees affected 48,000 workers. The automatic denials disproportionately impacted low-income workers and exacerbated racial income inequality.
Federal legislation, the Housing Not Handcuffs Act, was introduced to shift our national approach from punishment through fines and fees to clearing the path to housing. The bill would prohibit federal agencies from arresting, ticketing, or otherwise criminalizing homelessness.
Conclusion
In 2026 we look forward to leveraging the successes of this legislative session as we expand the footprint of our Free to Drive campaign, building coalitions and advocating for full elimination of all types of debt-based suspensions in new places. Given the likelihood of increasingly strained budgets and revenue shortfalls, FFJC is hopeful that this year’s successes demonstrate a true understanding of the harms of relying on fines and fees for individuals and governments alike, and the momentum for End Justice Fees will carry forward. We were encouraged by the incremental efforts to create a fairer justice system through the adoption of fairer and more effective ability to pay practices, and the foundation that is being laid for full reform of monetary sanction systems. Although we continue to be concerned by the overwhelming efforts of jurisdictions to implement and expand fine-based ATE, the continued work of advocates and lawmakers who recognize the harms and push back will lead us to true traffic safety improvement.
We are proud of our work this year to deepen the knowledge and understanding of the ways in which fines and fees impact all people, the momentum that has been created around our campaigns, and the bipartisan partnerships that have led to some major successes. We stand ready to continue advancing long-term, deeply impactful reforms in the years ahead.