SESSION OF 2024
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 500
As Amended by House Committee on Judiciary
Brief*
SB 500, as amended, would amend law pertaining to
restricted driving privileges for certain individuals who violate
the misdemeanor offense of failure to comply with a traffic
citation (failure to comply).
Failure to Comply with a Traffic Citation
Payment of Fines, Court Costs, and Penalties
Under continuing law, failure to appear in court in
response to a traffic citation and pay fines and court costs
associated with such citation constitutes failure to comply.
Upon such failure, the individual has 30 days to appear and
pay fines, court costs, and penalties before the driving
privileges of the individual are required to be suspended.
The bill would amend requirements that any such fines,
court costs, or penalties be paid in full, to instead require
payment of an amount as ordered by the court.
Reinstatement Fees
The bill would limit reinstatement fees assessed under
continuing law following failure to comply to a single fee of
$100.
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org [Note: Current law imposes a separate $100
reinstatement fee for each charge associated with the citation
with which the individual did not comply, regardless of the
disposition of the charge.]
Forms for Waiving or Reducing Payment of Court Costs or
Fines
Under continuing law, a person who is assessed a fine
or court costs for a traffic citation may petition the court to
waive payment, or any portion, of the fine or costs. The bill
would require the clerks of the district court and municipal
court to make forms available to any person seeking to make
such a motion.
Offense Look-back
The bill would prohibit courts or the Division of Vehicles
(Division), Kansas Department of Revenue, from considering
any conviction for a failure to comply that is older than five
years in determinations of suspension or restriction of driving
privileges. The bill would require the Division to notify
suspended or restricted individuals whose driving privileges
have not been restored that they could be eligible for driving
privileges pursuant to this provision.
Exclusions
Continuing law excludes illegal parking, standing, or
stopping as grounds for failure to comply. The bill would also
exclude certain violations not pertaining to the operation of a
motor vehicle from violations for which non-compliance with
the terms of a citation would constitute failure to comply.
[Note: Under current law, non-compliance with any traffic
citation, as defined by KSA 8-2106, constitutes grounds for
failure to comply.]
2- 500 Restricted Driving Privileges
Automatic Restriction of Driving Privileges
The bill would require the Division to restrict, rather than
suspend, the driving privileges of eligible individuals as
described below, upon a violation of failure to comply and
subsequent notification by the court.
The bill would authorize restoration of driving privileges
to be provided upon an individual entering into an agreement
with the court regarding the person’s failure to comply.
Eligibility
Individuals would be eligible for the automatic restricted
driving privileges authorized under the bill, provided:
●The individual does not have more than three
convictions for driving with a canceled, suspended,
or revoked license; and
●The license of the individual is not suspended for
reasons other than failure to comply.
The bill would specify drivers applying for restricted
driving privileges in lieu of suspension under continuing law
would be eligible to apply for a restricted license if they have
previously been approved for restricted driving privileges
under the automatic granting of restricted driving privileges
authorized by the bill.
Restricted Driving Privileges for Drivers with Revoked
Licenses for Failure to Comply
The bill would also authorize a restricted driver’s license
for a person whose driving privileges have been revoked for
driving while the person’s driving privilege was canceled,
suspended, or revoked only for failure to comply.
3- 500 The bill would remove, for drivers meeting the conditions
for reinstatement under provisions of the bill, a mandatory
three-year driver’s license revocation for drivers whose
license has been suspended solely for driving while the
person’s driving privilege was canceled, suspended, or
revoked only for failure to comply.
Duration of Restrictions
The duration of restricted driving privileges would vary
depending on the circumstances in which restrictions are
granted.
For any driver granted restricted driving privileges
pursuant to the bill, the Division would be directed to restore
driving privileges upon notice of a determination by the court
that the individual has substantially complied with the terms of
the traffic citation.
The bill would define “substantial compliance” to mean
the person has followed the orders of the court involving
payments of fines, court costs, and any penalties, and has
not failed substantially in making payments or satisfying the
terms of the court order, and would replace existing
references to “compliance” in the statute with “substantial
compliance.”
Otherwise, restricted driving privileges would remain in
effect unless otherwise rescinded, as follows:
●For drivers qualifying for automatic restriction of
driving privileges prior to suspension, the lesser of:
○60 days from the date that the Division mails
notice of restricted driving privileges; or
○Upon the person entering into an agreement
with the court regarding the person’s failure to
comply;
4- 500 ●For drivers applying for restricted driving privileges
under continuing law:
○Until the terms of the traffic citation have been
substantially complied with; or
●For drivers qualifying for restricted driving
privileges following license revocation, the lesser
of:
○The remainder of time the person’s driving
privileges are revoked; or
○Three years from the date the restricted
driving privileges were approved.
Permissible Driving Activities
The bill would add driving for the purpose of transporting
children to and from school or child care, purchasing
groceries or fuel, and attending religious worship services to
the list of driving activities permitted when restricted driving
privileges are granted for failure to comply. Permissible
driving activities would be the same for all circumstances in
which restricted driving privileges would be authorized under
the bill.
Violation of Restrictions
The bill would state a person operating a motor vehicle
in violation of restrictions authorized under the bill would be
guilty of operating a vehicle in violation of restrictions, which
would be a misdemeanor.
The bill would require the Division to rescind restricted
driving privileges authorized under the bill if the person is
found guilty of a violation, other than failure to comply, that
results in driver’s license suspension, revocation, or
cancellation.
5- 500 The bill would also require, for drivers qualifying for
automatic restriction of driving privileges prior to suspension,
the rescission of restricted driving privileges if the individual is
found guilty of operating a motor vehicle in violation of
restrictions, as provided for by the bill.
Background
The bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on
Judiciary at the request of Senator Wilborn.
Senate Committee on Judiciary
In the Senate Committee hearing, proponent testimony
was provided by Senator Faust-Goudeau, a representative of
the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, Kansas Sheriffs
Association, and Kansas Peace Officers Association, and
representatives of the Kansas Chamber, Kansas Department
of Revenue, Division of Vehicles (DMV), and the Sedgwick
County Board of County Commissioners. The proponents
stated the bill would help people get out of the cycle of traffic
debt and remain in the workforce while still being held
accountable, is the product of work done by stakeholders for
the last several years on the topic, and adequately addresses
concerns previously raised by the Legislature.
Written-only proponent testimony was provided by three
representatives of the Racial Profiling Advisory Board of
Wichita.
Written-only neutral testimony was provided by a
representative of Justice Action Network.
No other testimony was provided.
Opponent testimony was provided by a representative
of Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, who
6- 500 expressed a general opposition to debt-based license
restrictions.
The Senate Committee adopted amendments to:
●Replace existing language regarding waiver of
fines, fees, and court costs with language providing
for hardship payment plans and credits;
●Add language excluding certain violations from the
offense of failure to comply;
●Clarify compliance under the bill must be
substantial;
●Add driving activities that would be permitted for a
person with restricted driving privileges; and
●Make the bill effective upon publication in the
Kansas Register.
House Committee on Judiciary
In the House Committee hearing, proponent testimony
was provided by Senator Faust-Goudeau; a representative of
the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, the Kansas Peace
Officers Association, and the Kansas Sheriffs Association;
representatives of the Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and
Justice, Kansas Chamber, and DMV; and a private citizen.
The proponents generally stated the bill would allow people to
continue to work, take care of their children, and allow them
to pay back their fines and costs.
Neutral testimony was provided by a representative of
the Kansas Judicial Branch, identifying concerns related to
courts implementing the bill’s provisions.
Written-only proponent testimony was provided by a
representative of the Justice Action Network.
7- 500 No other testimony was provided.
The House Committee amended the bill to:
●Remove amendments made by the Senate
Committee concerning hardship payment plans
and credits to be earned against costs and fees;
and
●Change the effective date to upon publication in the
statute book.
Fiscal Information
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on the bill, as introduced, the Office of Judicial
Administration (OJA) states enactment of the bill could have
an unknown fiscal effect on Judicial Branch operations due to
the potential for increased processing time required by filings
under the provisions of the bill. OJA estimates enactment of
the bill could result in a decrease in driver’s license
reinstatement fees, fines, and other court costs, which would
affect both the State General Fund (SGF) and other state
funds.
The Kansas Department of Revenue indicates the bill
would require $1,250 from SGF in FY 2025 to implement the
bill and to modify its systems utilizing existing staff, though
additional expenditures for outside contract programmer
services beyond the Department’s current budget may be
required if implementation of the bill exceeds existing
resources. The Department also indicates changes to
reinstatement fees could have an unknown effect on the
proportion of those fees credited to the Division of Vehicles
Operating Fund. Any fiscal effect associated with enactment
of the bill is not reflected in The FY 2025 Governor’s Budget
Report.
8- 500 The League of Kansas Municipalities states enactment
of the bill would not have a fiscal effect on cities. The Kansas
Association of Counties is unable to estimate a fiscal effect
for counties resulting from the enactment of the bill.
Driver’s licenses; suspension; revocation; restricted driving privileges; failure to
comply with a citation
9- 500