Mandatory drug testing for elected officials, auto insurance bills vetoed

Gov. Eloy S. Inos vetoed on Friday a bill requiring elected public officials to submit to drug testing for controlled substances, saying the bill may violate constitutional rights and is “vague and problematic.” Rep. Christopher Leon Guerrero (Cov-Saipan), the bill’s author, said yesterday he will seek support from his fellow lawmakers to override the governor’s veto.

The governor also disapproved Rep. Lorenzo Deleon Guerrero’s (Ind-Saipan) bill imposing higher fines on those who fail to maintain automotive liability insurance and urges vehicle owners to register their vehicle on time. Inos said the bill is “flawed.”

Inos said House Bill 18-152, House Draft 2, which requires mandatory drug testing of elected officials, “is insufficient from a legal standpoint because it may violate elected officials’ constitutional rights and is otherwise vague and problematic.”

Inos cited three reasons for vetoing the bill. First, requiring elected officials to submit to drug tests could constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the CNMI and/or U.S. Constitutions, the governor said.

He said based on a U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a state law that requires drug testing of public officials must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing unless the state has showed that there is a “special need” for “suspicion-less” testing.

The governor said HB 18-152, HD2 does not support a special need to drug test elected officials in the CNMI.

“The findings are vague and do not indicate that there is a particular problem with elected officials in the CNMI abusing illegal drugs. Absent such a showing, this bill could amount to an unreasonable search and seizure under the CNMI and/or U.S. Constitutions,” the governor said in an April 18 veto message to House Speaker Joseph Deleon Guerrero (Ind-Saipan) and Senate President Ralph Torres (R-Saipan).

Leon Guerrero said the public has been clamoring for mandatory drug testing among elected officials, given that sitting lawmakers, for example, were accused of and later found using or involved in drugs.

Second, the governor said, requiring the results of drug testing to be made public may violate elected officials’ right of privacy, which is guaranteed in the CNMI Constitution.

Inos said the Legislature has not provided sufficient information in the bill’s findings to support that there is compelling reason to infringe upon the privacy of elected officials, as is required in Article I Section 10 of the CNMI Constitution.

“Requiring all elected officials’ drug test results to be made public could potentially lead to government liability for invasion of privacy, defamation, or negligence. Making drug test results public could also reveal information about lawfully prescribed drugs, which is protected as confidential information under the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Inos added.

Leon Guerrero said his bill won’t remove elected public officials from their posts if they fail to undergo drug testing or if they test positive. Rather their salary and other benefits will be immediately suspended “until such time as a favorable (conclusive negative) test result is provided.”

Third, the governor said, HB 18-152 is vague and problematic. For example, the bill does not specify whether the elected official or the government is to pay for drug testing.

“As this bill requires every elected official to undergo a drug test each year and such testing costs upwards of $40, this may create a considerable economic burden for the government,” the governor said.

Inos also said it is doubtful that the Office of Personnel Management has the capabilities and resources to arrange and manage drug testing, every year, for each CNMI elected official.

“Further, I have serious concerns about the legality and practicality of the penalty set forth in this bill, which is to suspend the elected official’s salary and benefits until he or she provides a negative result,” the governor added.

‘Flawed’ vehicle insurance bill

The governor also vetoed HB 18-103, HD2, SD1 related to vehicle insurance and registration, saying it is “flawed.”

First, the bill inadvertently repeals 9 CMC 8210(a)(2) and (b), the governor said.

Second, the bill penalizes the failure to possess evidence of insurance, but not the actual lack of insurance, Inos said.

Third, according to the governor, if the bill was supposed to increase the penalty for lack of actual insurance, then it fails because the current penalty is higher than the penalty proposed by HB 18-103.

The bill’s purpose is to increase fines for individuals that fail to maintain the liability insurance required by law. But the bill does not increase the fine for motorists that do not possess proof of liability insurance when they actually have insurance but they do not have their insurance card in their vehicle, Inos said.

“If HB 18-103 meant to increase the penalty violation of 8203 instead of 8204, then HB 18-103 is actually imposing a smaller fine than the one currently in place,” the governor added.