Interlock change isn't adequate reason for veto

The legislative process is a long and winding road, and for some Arizona lawmakers it recently ended in a dead-end in their effort to change the state's drunken driving law.
 
The proposed law involved significant changes in the driving under the influence law. It included some clarifications to the language of the law, as well as a new provision to equalize boating DUI with vehicular DUI. A change was also made to encourage drinkers to seek treatment.
  
But when it landed on Gov. Janet Napolitano's desk last week after being passed by the Legislature, she decided to veto it, apparently based on a portion of the legislation involving a change in how ignition interlock devices are used.
 
A law was passed last year which requires those convicted of DUI to install an interlock device for one year on their vehicles. This device is designed to prevent the car from being started unless the driver blows into it and gets a "clean" alcohol level reading.
 
The new DUI law passed this year made an exception to this requirement for offenders who complete a state-approved drug or alcohol education or treatment program. They could remove the interlock device after six months.
 
The governor said it was too soon to change the one year requirement because there had not been sufficient time to determine its effectiveness in deterring DUIs, so she vetoed HB 2395. She did not indicate she objected to the many other provisions of the bill.
 
If the other elements of the law were of value, which apparently is the case, we don't understand the governor's focus on the interlock issue.
 
For some offenders, the interlock device requirement is probably effective - these would be the ones who don't have a serious drinking problem and will likely use the device properly. But those are not the folks who most need to be deterred.
 
It is the alcoholics and serious drinkers who are most likely to be repeat offenders. They are also those who are most likely to find ways to defeat the interlock device. It isn't very hard. For one thing, the offender can simply drive a different vehicle! Or they can ask someone who is sober to blow into the device so the car can be started.
 
It is a shame the governor chose to dump other portions of the new law over what seems to us to be a minor change regarding interlock devices. It makes us wonder if there was something else she didn't like about the new law.