If you ever get a traffic ticket, a little-noticed change in state law will affect you.

Annoyance with a single Marion County traffic court judge is to blame for a major change to state law governing traffic fines. The change, which took effect July 1, removed judicial discretion and could dissuade first-time offenders from participating in deferral programs.

During the last legislative session, state lawmakers increased the cost of a moving violation and created a flat rate fining system for state traffic violations – speeding, rolling past a stop sign or blowing through a red light. Defendants who handle their traffic tickets by mail or at a court clerks’ office before their court date pay a fine of $35.50 plus court costs of $114.40, for a total of $150.

Defendants who admit their guilt at court or lose at trial pay the same fine. Traffic violators who decide to admit their guilt and save the court’s time are punished equally with the person who refuses to accept responsibility for breaking the law. People who challenge their tickets and lose are not punished for exercising their right to a trial.

Punishing people who fought their tickets is exactly what the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications accused Marion Superior Court Judge William Young of doing. The law has been labeled the “Indy traffic court bill” because it was created in response to evidence that Young levied excessive fines – and criticism – to people contesting tickets. Proponents claim it removes what was essentially a “trial tax” and helps make it more affordable for people to have their day in court.

The fine does increase for people who habitually challenge tickets at trial and lose. If a person challenges a ticket, loses the challenge and has already lost a challenge on another ticket within the last five years, the fine is increased to $364.50. It’s $614.50 for those losing a third challenged ticket in court.

Allen County’s Chief Deputy Prosecutor Mike McAlexander said it’s too early to tell how the change will affect Allen County, but he worries it could cause fewer people to use the deferral program. That program costs $164.50 and allows first-time offenders to pay a slightly larger fine but maintain a clean driving record if they don’t get another ticket for six months.

But the new law denies judges’ discretion and decreases judges’ ability to deter future violations. The change serves the interests of unsafe drivers and low-income violators.

Before the change, judges had more authority to encourage better driving. They could lecture risky drivers from the bench, order teenage traffic lawbreakers to take the bus rather than drive and order defensive driving school. And give stiffer fines.

“If I was a judge I’d be very upset if I saw someone coming in for the umpteenth time and I couldn’t give that person a harsher penalty,” said Mike McAlexander, chief deputy prosecutor in Allen County.

There is a reason these issues go before judges. They are in the best position to decide if the defendants are sincere and if their story is credible. Are they really sorry and will drive more carefully next time?

But there is also something to be said for uniformity and for making sure that drivers’ constitutional rights to a trial are not denied. Many, probably most, drivers who get tickets know they were breaking the law and pay the fine. Just as trials take up the courts’ valuable time, guilty drivers generally don’t want to wait in a courtroom to argue their ticket.

Sadly, it appears that one judge’s actions will take away discretion from many more judges throughout the state.