Traffic Ticket Penalty Cut for Automated Notices

Summary#

B26-0868, the Parking and Traffic Ticket Penalty Reduction Temporary Amendment Act of 2026, would temporarily amend the District of Columbia Traffic Adjudication Act of 1978. Its stated goal is to reduce certain penalties for late responses to traffic and parking notices; the bill does not cancel the underlying fines. It was introduced and has not been considered, so it is not law.

  • For notices detected by an automated traffic enforcement system, the bill would remove the extra penalty equal to the fine for failing to answer within 30 days.
  • For notices covered by the amended section 305, it would set a 60-day answer period. If unanswered, the infraction would be treated as admitted and all penalties, fines and vehicle conveyance fees would be assessed.
  • The Director would have to mail a warning by regular mail no later than 50 days after issuing a section 305 notice, if the Department of Motor Vehicles has an address on file.
  • The bill would remove the existing section 304(c) text that says a lessor faces monetary penalties under section 205 for failing to answer within 30 days.
  • The revised section 305 rule would not apply to fleet adjudication program participants.

What it means for you#

  • People who receive automated-enforcement notices: The extra penalty equal to the fine for missing the 30-day deadline would not apply under the bill. The underlying fine and any other applicable penalties would remain.
  • People who receive notices covered by section 305: They would have 60 days to answer. If they do not, the infraction would be treated as admitted and all penalties, fines and vehicle conveyance fees would be assessed. They should also receive a mailed warning by day 50 if the DMV has supplied an address.
  • Vehicle lessors and fleet program participants: The bill removes the stated 30-day late-response penalty for lessors. Fleet adjudication participants are excluded from the revised section 305 rule.
  • People with other kinds of notices: The bill does not change every traffic-ticket response deadline. The parent Act was not supplied, so I could not verify which notices fall under section 305 or compare all these changes with current law.

Money#

No cost estimate is included in the supplied material. The bill refers to a fiscal impact statement, but its figures are not supplied.

  • The Director would have to send the section 305 warning notices. The bill gives no estimate for the cost or staffing needed.
  • The bill does not set a new fine, fee or appropriation. It would remove a specific extra penalty in some cases, while still requiring all penalties, fines and vehicle conveyance fees to be assessed after a section 305 notice goes unanswered for 60 days.

What is unclear#

  • Which notices are covered by section 305 cannot be confirmed without the parent Act.
  • The bill says it applies as of October 1, 2030, but also says it expires 225 days after taking effect. How those dates fit together is unclear.
  • The bill does not explain what deadlines or penalties apply to fleet adjudication participants instead.
  • It does not set out a process for correcting a wrong address, disputing a deemed admission, or challenging the amount assessed.
  • The bill’s fiscal impact statement is not included. No publicly available information.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that removing the extra fine-sized penalty for late automated-enforcement responses could prevent a late answer from sharply increasing the amount owed.
  • Giving people covered by section 305 60 days, plus a mailed warning before the deadline, could give them more time and notice to respond.
  • The bill keeps the underlying fines and other penalties in place, rather than waiving them.

Case against#

  • The bill does not explain why automated-enforcement notices should be treated differently from other notices under the 30-day penalty rule.
  • For section 305 notices, missing the 60-day deadline still means the infraction is treated as admitted and all penalties, fines and vehicle conveyance fees are assessed.
  • The bill does not explain how people can challenge a deemed admission or what happens if the warning does not reach them.
  • The timing and the cost of the required mailing are not clear, and the bill’s start date and 225-day expiry may not align.