WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (WGHP) - A federal judge on Tuesday heard a settlement agreement that could restore driver's licenses to tens of thousands of North Carolinians.
The settlement presented to Chief Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina proposed to end a 4-year-old class action lawsuit brought by a group of drivers who had lost their licenses for failure to pay traffic fines within a specific time frame some did not know.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other parties and the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles proposed this agreement as an option to end Johnson v. Jessup, which focuses on the revocation of licenses for drivers who don't pay all fines and fees within the required 40 days and on the process by which the DMV communicates with those motorists.
The ACLU said in a release after the hearing that the agreement with the DMV would:
- Require the DMV to provide a special notice to tens of thousands of drivers with a revoked license that informs them how they can seek reinstatement of their licenses.
- Require the DMV to revise future notices to include information on how a driver can petition and demonstrate to the court an inability to pay a traffic-related fine or cost before revoking the license.
- Require the DMV to create an informational website about preventing or removing a license suspension for non-payment from a person’s record.
- Provide pro bono legal resources to those seeking to avoid license revocation or for removal of a revocation from their records.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice sued in May 2018 on behalf of Seti Johnson and Sharee Smooth under the 14th Amendment. In August an amended filing made this a class-action suit to represent all who were in similar circumstances.
Attorneys for the NC DMV had argued that the 11th Amendment of the Constitution precluded the federal court from hearing the suit, saying it was a state matter, that the “fundamental fairness” doctrine does not apply.
Torre Jessup, then commissioner of the NCDMV, was named as the defendant. The suit cited the 1-page official notice that alerts defendants that their licenses are about to be revoked but, the suit alleges, doesn’t tell them all their rights.
The suit sought to have North Carolina’s law declared unconstitutional, to prevent NC DMV from revoking licenses without a hearing and without establishing options to repay the fines and fees and to require the DMV to restore any licenses that were revoked solely because fines and fees weren’t paid on time.
Johnson, described in court filings as a young, Black father of three, had lost his job and was unable to pay off his traffic ticket, which moved the DMV to revoke and suspend his license, which, his suit says, prevented him from driving to a job and taking his children to school and daycare.
WGHP reached out to NC DMV for a comment on the settlement agreement.
In a statement issued after the hearing, the organizations representing the plaintiffs had this to say:
“We appreciate the court’s consideration of this settlement. We are hopeful that we can soon end the practice of revoking people’s drivers’ licenses solely because they are not wealthy, a practice that has disproportionately affected people and communities of color. For too long, the poverty-based practice of revoking driver’s licenses has resulted in tens of thousands of North Carolinians having to decide between providing for their families and losing their ability to drive, which is often essential for employment, accessing healthcare, buying groceries, and more.
“We thank the court for considering the settlement brought forth by the plaintiffs and the DMV that would provide a path forward for many of the North Carolinians who have been harmed by this practice.”
State law gives motorists 40 days to pay their fines and fees or revoke the license indefinitely. The suit said that law affected 436,000 drivers just in the fall of 2017. Plaintiffs argued that the law unfairly targeted people living in poverty, citing the 15% of North Carolinians living below the poverty line at the time of the filing.
0 Comments