SB 5287
In CommitteeSenate
Ignition interlock assist.
Limiting the monetary assistance an indigent person may receive from the ignition interlock device revolving account program.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill limits how much financial help low-income drivers can get from the state to pay for ignition interlock devices — capping it at assistance for two vehicles per person or household. It also updates eligibility rules and keeps the existing $21 monthly fee in place. The changes are meant to ensure fair and sustainable use of state funds while still helping people who need the devices to drive legally after a DUI conviction.
- Limits state financial assistance from the Ignition Interlock Device Revolving Account to help with costs for no more than two vehicles per person (or two vehicles per household, if more practical), including installation, removal, leasing, and licensing fees.
- Requires the Department of Licensing to adopt new rules to implement this limit, prioritizing assistance based on greatest need and available funding.
- Maintains the existing $21 monthly fee paid by drivers (unless waived by the interlock company or for indigent individuals), with the interlock company keeping 25 cents per month to cover administrative costs.
- Clarifies that the state will deposit the $21 fee into the Ignition Interlock Device Revolving Account, which can only be used to run the assistance program.
- Expands eligibility for ignition interlock licenses to include people convicted of certain reduced charges (e.g., RCW 46.61.500 when originally filed as a DUI) and people without a license who meet other criteria.
Who is affected
- People convicted of DUI or related offenses — People convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) or related offenses who need to get their driver’s license back but cannot afford the cost of installing and maintaining an ignition interlock device.
- Indigent drivers — Low-income individuals who qualify as 'indigent' under state law and may receive financial help from the state to cover interlock device costs — but now face a new limit on how much help they can get.
- Ignition interlock device providers — Companies that install and maintain ignition interlock devices, which must collect the $21 monthly fee and remit most of it to the state.
- State agencies (e.g., Department of Licensing) — State agencies — especially the Department of Licensing — which must implement new rules limiting how much financial assistance can be provided to low-income drivers.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The two-vehicle cap provides a clear, administrable limit for state program staff to enforce, reducing potential for fraud or overuse of the revolving account and improving program sustainability.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(6)(c) / Sec. 2(6)(c)By limiting state assistance to two vehicles, the state can extend program funds to more applicants overall, potentially increasing access for first-time applicants who otherwise face long waitlists due to budget constraints.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(6)(c) / Sec. 2(6)(c)The bill preserves the $21 monthly fee and 25-cent administrative retention for interlock companies, ensuring stable revenue for providers and supporting continued operation of device installation and monitoring services.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(6)(c) / Sec. 2(6)(c)The bill maintains the $21 monthly fee and interlock requirement for all drivers, reinforcing accountability and reducing recidivism among DUI offenders — consistent with public safety goals.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(6)(c) / Sec. 2(6)(c)Expanding eligibility to include people convicted of reduced charges (e.g., RCW 46.61.500 filed as DUI) and unlicensed individuals meeting other criteria helps ensure fairer access to driving privileges for those who may have been unfairly excluded under prior interpretations.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 1(8)(a)-(b) / Sec. 2(8)(a)-(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
Limits state financial assistance to only two vehicles per person/household, which may prevent low-income individuals from legally driving multiple vehicles they rely on for work, childcare, or transportation in rural areas — increasing transportation insecurity and potentially jeopardizing employment or family stability.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(c) / Sec. 2(6)(c)By limiting assistance to two vehicles, some indigent drivers may operate vehicles without interlock devices illegally to meet essential transportation needs, increasing risk of repeat DUI offenses and endangering public safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(c) / Sec. 2(6)(c)Indigent drivers who own more than two vehicles (e.g., for work, side jobs, or shared custody arrangements) may be forced to pay out-of-pocket for additional interlock devices — costs that can exceed $1,000 — pushing them deeper into debt or inability to comply with court orders.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(c) / Sec. 2(6)(c)The two-vehicle cap may disproportionately impact people in rural or transit-poor areas who rely on multiple vehicles due to lack of alternatives, effectively restricting their mobility and autonomy in ways not experienced by wealthier drivers.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(c) / Sec. 2(6)(c)The bill shifts administrative burden to local interlock providers and DOL to implement new eligibility rules and verify household composition, but does not provide new funding for this work — potentially straining local resources without compensation.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(6)(c) / Sec. 2(6)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income individuals with multiple vehicles (e.g., for work, shared custody, or rural transportation) will be disproportionately harmed — they may be unable to afford additional interlock costs or may risk illegal operation.
Interlock providers benefit from stable fee revenue and continued demand, but may face increased administrative burden verifying household composition and vehicle counts.
State agencies gain clearer administrative boundaries and cost control, but must invest in new rulemaking and verification systems without additional funding.
Public safety improves modestly due to consistent interlock use among those who qualify, but risk of noncompliance may rise for those unable to afford multiple devices.
People with reduced charges or no license may benefit from expanded eligibility, but those with multiple vehicles face new barriers despite being otherwise eligible.