A state lawmaker thinks he has figured out how to get Gov. John Hickenlooper to sign a bill that would curb the use of red-light cameras in the state – give the governor what he wants.

State Rep. Steve Lebsock, D-Thornton, told The Colorado Statesman he is in the process of drafting a bill for next year that will include language that is “almost identical” to the kind of red-light camera and photo radar legislation Hickenlooper has suggested lawmakers take up.

The governor vetoed two bills in June, one that required local voter approval for the use of automated vehicle identification systems and another that sought to ban the use of the technology outright.

Hickenlooper said the bills went “too far.” But in his veto letters, Hickenlooper gave lawmakers direction as to the kind of legislation he would find amenable.

The governor encouraged lawmakers to enact legislation that limits the technology to specific traffic areas: school zones, construction and roadway work zones, and “areas with disproportionately high traffic and pedestrian accidents, injuries and fatalities.”

Lebsock, who sponsored efforts to curb the technology during the recent legislative session, believes a bill he is in the process of drafting will largely satisfy the governor’s request.

Lebsock said his bill would limit the use of red-light cameras and photo radar systems to school and construction zones and “major artery roads.” His legislation would ban the use of the technology everywhere else.

“We do not need a camera on every single street and every single street corner,” Lebsock said. “That’s where we’re headed now.”

Lebsock said he would rather do away with photo radar technology altogether, but said the governor’s preferred path forward “is a good first step.”

But that effort isn’t going to satisfy everyone at the Capitol.

State Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton, said the governor’s recommended legislation is “a non-starter, as far as I’m concerned.”

“I want to see something done, but it needs to be something that actually makes an impact and works toward getting rid of this product,” Neville said.

Neville said he doesn’t want to sign on to a bad bill “for the sake of providing political cover.”

Asked what a bad bill would look like, Neville said, “A bad bill would be basically what the governor is asking for.”

Efforts to pass legislation to curb the use of red-light cameras and other photo radar systems received bipartisan support at the Legislature earlier this year.

Those opposed to the technology argue that the systems are of little benefit to public safety and that they cause even more accidents due to drivers suddenly breaking at intersections where cameras are mounted.

Opponents of the technology also have due-process concerns over the inability of ticketed motorists to confront their accusers – as they would in cases where they are issued tickets by police officers. Many also have philosophical objections to what they say is a society under increased government surveillance.

But supporters of the systems insist the technology saves lives. Representatives from municipal groups and law enforcement say the presence of the cameras forces motorists to curb dangerous driving habits.

“While not always popular, when used correctly, radar and red-light cameras make roads safer,” Hickenlooper’s veto letter reads.

Federal investigation aids momentum

But Lebsock and Neville feel that momentum and public opinion is on their side on this issue – and they are buoyed by the recent developments in a federal bribery investigation into the former chief of one of the nation’s largest red-light camera providers.

Former RedFlex Traffic Systems Inc. CEO Karen Finley pleaded guilty last month to charges that she made campaign contributions to elected officials in Ohio in exchange for keeping red-light camera contracts with two cities there.

Finley also faces prosecution for an alleged bribery scandal in Chicago.

RedFlex cameras have been installed in Colorado, including in Denver. However, the city now uses a different company.

Although no allegations against Colorado officials have surfaced, Lebsock and Neville say they believe the existing investigation into wrongdoing elsewhere will continue to feed public resentment of the technology.

“I would hope that would help be a game-changer,” Neville said of the investigation. “And it really comes down to one person and one vote, and that’s the governor’s. And I would hope that the governor would have had a chance to take a look and realize that none of this is good for Colorado, let alone the issues that surround red light cameras to begin with.”

“I think this case, and it being written about and being covered by news agencies, brings a new light to the issue,” Lebsock said. “And it brings more attention to the issue.”

But don’t expect lawmakers to rally around a single legislative effort next year. That could open the door to what we saw earlier this year – multiple bills being heavily amended through the legislative process to the point where they read completely differently than when they were first introduced.

“There will more than likely be more than one red-light camera bill next year,” Lebsock said.

– Twitter: @VicVela1