License Renewal Application Form - Office Of Insurance And Safety: Fill & Download for Free

It does, in fact, seem very similar to getting a driver’s license before you drive a car. However, there are two major differences, one more critical than the other.First, and the lesser issue, you don’t actually need a driver’s license to own a motor vehicle. You need one to operate a car on public roads. For many of us, that’s a distinction without a difference, as without a license our car just gets to look pretty in the garage or driveway. However, for a farmer on 1000 acres, their 13-year-old son could already have been driving farm trucks and tractors for years. Those trucks, in turn, don’t have to be registered or insured, and farmers often get steep discounts in registering them for the rare instances they need to take that truck on a government-owned road.So, driver licenses are closer in theory to carry permits, not ownership permits. If your use of a gun is limited to your home property and that of anywhere you have the landowner’s permission to possess a firearm, the government doesn’t really have any skin in the game.Second, and much more important to most gun owners: nobody speaking in favor of licensing drivers wants to use the system to ban all cars.Licensing of gun owners, and even gun carriers, has been commonly abused in U.S. jurisdictions where political leaders just do not want there to be any guns at all, in order to achieve that very goal.8 states in the US currently have what is called a “may issue” system for carry permits; the permitting entity, often a part of state or local law enforcement, has a subjective or discretionary ability to say that an otherwise qualified applicant may not carry a gun. It’s most commonly seen in the form of a “good cause” requirement, where the applicant has to distinguish themselves from the general population in their stated need to carry a gun. A general desire for self defense won't cut it; you have to somehow convince the permit approver that you need a gun more than the last guy, or the next.These “may-issue” policies, contingent on approval by the local head of law enforcement (police chief or sheriff) or by a State-level permitting board, used to be much more common in the US, as well as “no-issue” policies where there simply was no way for a person not associated with law enforcement or professional security to get a permit to carry a gun:The concealed-carry movement, and the open-carry movement for that matter, have resulted in nationwide reforms; click the above image to watch the progression, or if like a couple of commenters you just want the essentials, here’s the current map:As you can see, attitudes in the country have relaxed considerably, with no State-level “no-issue” jurisdictions, and a number of states following Vermont’s lead in not requiring a permit at all (Unrestricted, aka “Constitutional carry”).Those remaining yellow jurisdictions as of the end of the above animation remain may-issue for one sole reason; they use the discretionary criteria to deny any application by anyone who can’t make that a politically costly decision for the police chief or permit board members. As such almost all the yellow states are “no-issue” in practice; the law’s on the books, but current government/law-enforcement policy is not to issue a permit to an “ordinary” law-abiding citizen.As one example: San Francisco County, CA, on the southern peninsula sheltering San Francisco Bay, is home to 880,000 people and most of the City of San Francisco proper. Travis County, TX, containing the bulk of the City of Austin, is home to 1.2 million, and despite being in Texas is considered a very close ideological match to the Bay Area, with a lot of ex-Silicon Valley tech sector workers moving to the “Silicon Hills” for lower cost-of-living (though that demand has raised prices considerably over the last 30 years). In 2016, Travis County went for Hillary Clinton by a 2:1 vote margin, about the same as the California statewide average.Travis County had 7,946 LTC permits issued or renewed in 2018 alone, which when you multiply by the 5-year life of the permit, assuming application rates are steady (they aren’t; they grow by about 5% each year) gives us a per-capita rate of about 3%. That’s low for Texas, which has a statewide average of about 4% of Texas residents with an LTC (and that in turn is below the national average of 5.25% of the US population with a concealed carry permit).San Francisco County? Has 2 active carry permits. Two. One, two. The per-capita rate is 0.000226%. The most recent reports state that the county has doubled its permit count to 4, which would make the rate 0.000452%.You might point out that San Francisco County is much smaller, and therefore denser, than Travis County, and you’d be right. Santa Clara County, around the south end of the Bay and home to 1.9 million people in a much larger land area including the true “Silicon Valley” of the Guadalupe River basin feeding into the Bay through San Jose, might be a better comparison. How many permits does it have?108. A per capita rate of 0.005%.Texas active permit holders by county: Demographic Reports for CY 2018California active permit holders by county: CA CCW/LTC Map & TableSimilar populations, similar densities, similar wealth class distribution, similar local ideology. Yet the California urban counties have permitting rates between a hundredth and a thousandth that of the Texas county. You in fact have to go out into the Sierras, into “NorCal” cities like Fresno and Sacramento, to find the highest urban-county permit rates in California, which are still on par with the lowest urban-county permit rates in Texas.This isn’t because people in the Bay Area don’t want permits; quite the contrary, when a Ninth Circuit judicial panel struck down the state’s good cause requirement in the case of Peruta v. San Diego County, SFC permit applications spiked into the dozens (which may not seem like much, but compared to two active permits and 13 applications from the previous year, all still pending as of the article, it was a spike). Statewide, the roughly 16,000 applications pending as of the panel ruling would have increased the active permit count by 20% in the state had the panel ruling held up. As it was, the Ninth Circuit revisited the case despite neither party appealing the panel ruling, and overturned the panel decision, with SCOTUS declining further review.Because a commenter asked, here are the homicide and crime rates for the three counties in question, latest available data and all figures per 100k:Property Crime:San Francisco: 5715 (FY17–18)Santa Clara: 2414 (CY2017)Travis: 3344 (CY2017)Violent Crime:San Francisco: 712Santa Clara: 309Travis: 427Homicide (All weapons):San Francisco: 6.32 (56 events over 885k residents in CY2017)Santa Clara: 2.43 (43 events over 1.9m residents in CY2017)Travis: 2.73 (26 events over 950k City of Austin residents CY2017)Homicides (Firearms only):San Francisco: 4.29 (38 events CY2017)Santa Clara: 1.72 (based on report of 71% of county homicides being firearm-related)Travis: 1.58 (15 events CY2017)Sources:https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/Documents/PoliceDocuments/CompStat/SFPD-CompStat-YearEnd-2017.pdfhttps://www.sccgov.org/sites/da/newsroom/newsreleases/Documents/2018NRDocs/CSU%202017%20Annual%20Report.pdfAustin, TX Crime RatesAustin homicide statistics - Austin Homicides Project - Austin American-StatesmanWhile there are numerous variables besides gun ownership and carry, I would predict that gun control advocates won’t be trumpeting these numbers too loudly. At best, the comparison between Santa Clara and Travis counties show no statistically-significant difference that could be attributed to gun control laws; in fact Austin’s numbers on firearm-related homicide are just a little better, but not by enough to draw a conclusion. At worst, comparing Travis County to the shining jewel of Californian gun control in San Francisco, having nearly twice the property and violent crime, more than twice the homicides per capita and almost three times as many of those homicides committed with a firearm, it’s clear zero tolerance gun control isn’t working too well.Getting back to the main point, permitting laws are commonly used by legislators and law enforcement to deny the right to keep and bear arms to residents, in the name of promoting public safety. Even in “shall-issue” jurisdictions, the cost and time required to obtain a permit is often deliberately prohibitive; Illinois went shall-issue in 2012 after a Seventh Circuit case in Moore v. Madigan struck down the state’s no-issue policy, but that permit still costs $150, plus the cost and time of a two-day course on state law and firearms safety and proficiency. Add the course cost to the permit application fee and many of the guns you would carry once you had the permit would cost less than the government permission to exercise your Second Amendment right. Texas had a similarly high application cost of $140, with classes costing up to the same amount, but unlike Illinois it has been consciously reducing the cost burden, with classes now costing about $75 and the permit itself costing just $40. Since that application fee reduction went into effect in September 2017, over 100,000 new permits have been issued in each of the two years since, more than exist in California today, evidence that the high cost had been a prohibiting factor for many Texans.So in summary, right or no right, many gun owners would likely accept permitting, especially for public carry. A majority likely do; Pew Research poll numbers on gun ownership and on support of concealed carry permitting laws have a 13-point overlap, representing just under half of the gun-owning population in the surveys.What they do not accept, and what likely keeps support for permitting in general from being near-universal, is the use of the prerequisites, conditions and costs of obtaining a permit in order to minimize the number of permittees. If, the next time you renewed your driver license, the DMV clerk took your money, stamped a big “DENIED” mark on your application and tossed it in a bin because you didn’t convince the clerk you needed that license, you’d be pretty hacked, and in fact long before you showed up there would likely have been a full-on riot at the DMV office from the hundreds of other drivers getting the same treatment. Yet that is exactly what California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Massachusetts and Hawaii do to their residents who wish to carry a gun. The usual counterargument is that you don’t need a gun every day of your life, which is quite correct. However, carry weapons are like hospitals in this regard; when you need one, you need it now, you need it desperately and you need it very close by.Unfortunately, the genie’s out of the bottle; it is generally known by gun owners that gun control advocates like using permitting laws (and a host of other safety-oriented laws and regulations) to accomplish their goal of minimizing the number of guns in civilian use. So, there may not be any lengths to which you could go to demonstrate that these abuses can and will no longer happen, that would get gun owners to believe and trust you. The Democratic Party could do a 180 on the subject, expel every politician in favor of gun control from their party and blackball every candidate who so much as looked the wrong way at a portrait of John Moses Browning. Gun owners would sit back and wait for the other shoe to drop. In reality, the rhetoric, though played a bit closer to the chest than in the 1990s during debate over the Brady Bill and AWB, is no less anti-gun; when Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, instrumental in tightening the gun laws of their respective states, are Presidential candidates for the Democrats, and no more reasoned or moderate in their tone or language, it’s obvious little if anything has changed about the party’s goals for civilian firearm possession and use.

You are required to renew your driver’s license every six years in Texas. Most driver’s licenses and identification (ID) cards for Texas can be renewed up to two years before or after the expiration date on the card. You have a few options to renew a Texas driver’s license or ID card:Online or by phone.By mail.In person at your local driver’s license office.Online or by phoneHere are the requirements if you want to renew your Texas driver’s license online or by phone:You did your last renewal in-person.You have a Class C, M or CM license. You cannot renew a Class A, B or commercial license online or by phone.Your driver’s license will expire within two years or has been expired for less than two years.You are at least age 18 and your driver’s license is not a provisional or learner’s permit.You’re younger than age 79.Your vision and physical condition have not changed since your last renewal in a way that might affect your ability to drive.Your license is valid (not suspended or revoked).You do not have any arrest warrants.You do not have any unpaid tickets.Your Social Security number (SSN) is already on file with the Texas Department of Public Safety.You are a U.S. citizen.You have your most recently issued driver’s license or the audit number from the card.You can use the Texas Department of Public Safety’s license eligibility page to find out if you have any unpaid tickets or if there are any other steps needed to make your license eligible for renewal.To renew either a driver’s licenses or ID cards online or by phone, you will need the following:A printer to print your temporary license or ID and payment receipt. A temporary receipt will be mailed to you if you renew online; however, you will not receive a temporary receipt if you renew by phone.A valid credit card: MasterCard, Visa, Discover or American Express.The last four digits of your Social Security number.If you meet the above requirements, you can begin the online renewal process or call 1-866-DL RENEW (1-866-357-3639).By mailIf you received an invitation to renew by mail, there will be instructions on the form. You can also renew online or by phone if you received this invitation.In personIf you’re not eligible to renew online, by phone or by mail, you can renew a driver’s license or ID card in-person at a local driver’s license office.What do I need to bring to renew my driver’s license in Texas?You will need to bring:An application for renewal.Proof you’re a U.S citizen if you have not previously provided proof, or updated evidence of lawful presence.Proof of identity.Proof of social security number.For more information on what documentation satisfies proof of Social Security number, proof of identity, citizenship or lawful presence, refer to this checklist provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety.When you have the proper documents, you will need to:Complete the renewal application prior to arriving at the your local driver’s license office.Find your local office.Bring all the documentation with you (see above).Pass a vision exam.Provide a thumbprint.Have your picture taken.Pay an application fee.Do I need my Social Security card to renew my license in Texas?Your Social Security number is required for both a driver’s license and ID. You will need to provide documents to verify your SSN if it is not already a part of your driver record. The following documents show proof of SSN:Social Security card.W-2.SSA-1099 form.A non-SSA-1099 form.Pay stub with your name and SSN on it.Military ID.Certificate of release or Discharge of Active Duty (DD-214).Certificate of college/university transcript showing the SSN.Documents such as health insurance cards, Veteran’s Administration cards, and pilot’s licenses with identifiable SSN.All of the above documents can be expired or unexpired, but your full SSN must be listed on it. You must provide unaltered original documents. Copies of the documents will not be accepted.Does Texas have a grace period for an expired driver’s license?You can renew an expired driver’s license in Texas for up to two years. After two years, you are required to retake the driving test.What happens if you drive with an expired license in Texas?Driving with an expired license is illegal in Texas and you would be subject to fines and penalties, including jail time for a third offense.

In Arizona our Supreme Court did a year long study and issued a report with recommendations that was sent to our legislature. A very reasonable report by serious, professional, credentialed people making recommendations that would make a significant impact in the system. Here is the executive summary so you can see it’s not frivolous in any way. Unfortunately it had no success in 2017. They will try again in 2018 but it’s a hard battle in our legislature.How long will it take? If we do not change our elected officials, it will take a long time. If there is no vested interest in reducing prison occupancy, it will take a long time. As Americans it is up to us to decide.TASK FORCE ON FAIR JUSTICE FOR ALL:Court-Ordered Fines, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesChair – Mr. Dave Byers, Administrative Director, AOC Vice-Chair – Mr. Tom O’Connell, Pretrial Manager, AOCMr. Kent Batty, Court Administrator, Superior Court in Pima CountyHonorable Michael Robert Bluff, Associate Presiding Judge Superior Court in Yavapai CountyHonorable Maria Elena Cruz, Presiding Judge, Superior Court, Yuma CountyMr. Bob James, Deputy Court Administrator Superior Court, Maricopa CountyMs. Rebecca Steele, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Clerk of CourtHonorable Lisa Roberts , Commissioner, Superior Court in Maricopa CountyHonorable Dorothy Little, President, Arizona Justice of the Peace Association,Payson Magistrate CourtMEMBERSHonorable Antonio Riojas, Presiding Magistrate Tucson City CourtHonorable Thomas Robinson, Tempe Municipal CourtHonorable Don Taylor, Chief Presiding Judge Phoenix Municipal CourtMr. Doug Kooi, Court Administrator, Pima County Consolidated Justice CourtMr. Jeffrey Fine, Court Administrator, Maricopa County Justice CourtsMr. Michael Kurtenbach, Assistant Chief Community Services Division,City of Phoenix Police DepartmentMs. India Davis, Corrections Chief, Pima County Sheriff’s DepartmentMs. Mary Ellen Sheppard, Assistant County Manager Maricopa CountyiiiMr. Ryan Glover, Prosecutor, Glendale City Prosecutor’s OfficeMr. Paul Julien, Judicial Education Officer Education Services Division, AOC Judge Pro TemMs. Kathy Waters, Director, Adult Probation Services, AOC Liaison to Pretrial Advisory CommitteeMr. Jeremy Mussman, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Public Defender’s OfficeMr. Tony Penn, Arizona Judicial Council Public Member RepresentativePresident and CEO, United Way of Tucson and Southern ArizonaHonorable John Hudson, Presiding Judge, Gilbert Municipal CourtMr. Leonardo Ruiz, Deputy County Attorney Maricopa County Attorney’s OfficeMs. Dianne Post, Attorney, Arizona State NAACPMs. Alessandra Soler , Executive Director of the Arizona ACLUAOC Staff:Ms. Theresa Barrett, Court Programs Unit, Manager Court Services DivisionMs. Kathy Sekardi, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMr. Patrick Scott, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Kay Radwanski, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Pickard, Court Specialist, Court Services DivisionMs. Sabrina Nash, Administrative Assistant Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Hunt, Executive Assistant Executive OfficeivJustice for AllReport and Recommendations of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesExecutive SummaryTASK FORCE PURPOSEOn March 3, 2016, Chief Justice Scott Bales issued Administrative Order No. 2016-16, which established the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release Policies. The administrative order outlined the purpose of the task force as to study and make recommendations as follows:a) Recommend statutory changes, if needed, court rules, written policies, and processes and procedures for setting, collecting, and reducing or waiving court- imposed payments.b) Recommend options for people who cannot pay the full amount of a sanction at the time of sentencing to make reasonable time payments or perform community service in lieu of some or all of the fine or sanction.c) Recommend best practices for making release decisions that protect the public but do not keep people in jail solely for the inability to pay bail.d) Review the practice of suspending driver’s licenses1 and consider alternatives to license suspension.1 Throughout this report, the terminology for a driver’s license is used to reflect driving privileges or a driver license as defined in the Arizona Revised Statutes.This report describes the work and recommendations of the members of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the members of the Arizona Supreme Court.1Justice for Alle) Recommend educational programs for judicial officers, including pro tem judges and court staff who are part of the pretrial decision-making process.f) Identify technological solutions and other best practices that provide defendant notifications of court dates and other court-ordered deadlines using mobile applications to reduce the number of defendants who fail to appear for court and to encourage people who receive citations to come to court.The Chief Justice asked the task force to file a report and make recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) by October 31, 2016. The report that follows consists of 53 recommendations, plus additional educational and training recommendations for the AJC’s review and consideration.TASK FORCE ABBREVIATED RECOMMENDATIONSThe annotated recommendations are set forth in more detail in the body of the report. Below is an abbreviated list with links to the full recommendations.Authorize judges to mitigate mandatory minimum fines, fees, surcharges, and penalties if the amount otherwise imposes an unfair economic hardship.Use automated tools to determine a defendant’s ability to pay.Create a Simplified Payment Ability Form when evaluating a defendant’s ability to pay.Use means-tested assistance program qualification as evidence of a defendant’s limited ability to pay.Seek legislation to reclassify certain criminal charges to civil violations for first-time offenses.Implement the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program statewide.Conduct a pilot program that combines the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program with a fine reduction program and reinstatement of defendants’ drivers’ licenses.Test techniques to make it easier for defendants to make time payments on court- imposed financial sanctions.Seek legislation that would grant courts discretion to close cases and write off fines and fees for traffic and misdemeanor after a 20-year period if reasonable collection efforts have not been effective.2Justice for AllAllow probationers to receive earned time credit without consideration of financial assessments, other than restitution to victims.Eliminate or reduce the imposition of the 10 percent annual interest rate on any Criminal Restitution Order.Modify court website information, bond cards, reminder letters, FARE (Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement) letters, and instructions for online citation payment to explain that if the defendant intends to plead guilty or responsible but cannot afford to pay the full amount of the court sanctions at the time of the hearing, the defendant may request a time payment plan.Authorize judges to impose a direct sentence that may include community restitution (service) and education and treatment programs as available sentencing options for misdemeanor offenses.Expand community restitution (service) to be applied to surcharges, as well as fines and fees, and expand this option to sentences imposed by superior courts.Implement English and Spanish Interactive Voice Response (IVR), email, or a text messaging system to remind defendants of court dates, missed payments, and other actions to reduce failures to appear.Modify forms to collect cell phone numbers, secondary phone numbers, and email addresses.Train staff to verify and update contact information for defendants at every opportunity.Provide information to law enforcement agencies regarding the importance of gathering current contact information on the citation form.After a defendant fails to appear, notify the defendant that a warrant will be issued unless the defendant comes to court within five days.For courts operating pretrial service programs, allow pretrial services five days to re-engage defendants who have missed scheduled court dates and delay the issuance of a failure to appear warrant for those defendants who appear on the rescheduled dates.Authorize the court to quash a warrant for failure to appear and reschedule a new court date for a defendant who voluntarily appears in court after a warrant has been issued.3Justice for AllConsider increasing access to the court (e.g., offering hours at night, on weekends, or extending regular hours, taking the court to people in remote areas, and allowing remote video and telephonic appearances).Develop and pilot a system that communicates in English and Spanish (such as video avatars) to provide explanations of options available to defendants who receive tickets or citations.24. Clarify on court informational websites and bond cards that defendants may come to court before the designated court date to resolve a civil traffic case and explain how to reschedule the hearing for those defendants who cannot appear on the scheduled dates.25. Implement the ability to email proof of compliance with a law—such as proof of insurance—to the court to avoid having to appear in person.26. Suspend a driver’s license as a last resort, not a first step.Make a first offense of driving on a suspended license a civil violation rather than a criminal offense.Provide courts with the ability to collect and use updated contact information, such as a database service, before issuing a warrant or a reminder in aging cases.Authorize courts to impose restrictions on driving—such as “to and from work only”—as an alternative to suspending a driver’s license altogether.Prior to or in lieu of issuing a warrant to bring a person to court for failure to pay, courts should employ proactive practices that promote voluntary compliance and appearance.Support renewing efforts to encourage the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators to approach Congress about extending the federal tax intercept program to include intercepting federal tax refunds to pay victim restitution awards, with an exception for those who are eligible for the earned income tax credit.Promote the use of restitution courts, status conferences, and probation review hearings that ensure due process and consider the wishes of the victim. Provide judicial training on the appropriate use of Orders to Show Cause in lieu of warrants and appointment of counsel at hearings involving a defendant’s loss of liberty.Coordinate where possible with the local regional behavioral health authority to assist the court or pretrial services in identifying defendants who have previously been diagnosed as mentally ill.4Justice for AllRevise mental health competency statutes for expediting mental competency proceedings for misdemeanor cases.Bring together criminal justice and mental health stakeholders in larger jurisdictions to adopt protocols for addressing people with mental health issues who have been brought to court.Consider the use of specialty courts and other available resources to address a defendant’s treatment and service needs, as well as risk to the community, when processing cases involving persons with mental health needs or other specialized groups.Modify Form 6–Release Order and Form 7–Appearance Bond to simplify language and clarify defendants’ rights in an easy-to-understand format.Eliminate the use of non-traffic criminal bond schedules.Amend Rule 7.4, Rules of Criminal Procedure, to require the appointment of counsel if a person remains in jail after the initial appearance.Clarify by rule that small bonds ($5-100) are not required to ensure that the defendant gets credit for time served when defendant is also being held in another case.Authorize the court to temporarily release a “hold” from a limited jurisdiction court and order placement directly into a substance abuse treatment program upon recommendation of the probation department.Expedite the bond process to facilitate timely release to treatment programs.43. Request amendment of A.R.S. § 13-3961(D) and (E) (Offenses not bailable; purpose; preconviction; exceptions) to authorize the court, on its own motion, to set a hearing to determine whether a defendant should be held without bail.Encourage the presence of court-appointed counsel and prosecutors at initial appearance hearings to assist the court in determining appropriate release conditions and to resolve misdemeanor cases.Request the legislature to refer to the people an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to expand preventive detention to allow courts to detain defendants when the court determines that the release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, in addition to when the defendant’s release will not reasonably assure the safety of other persons or the community.Eliminate the requirement for cash surety to the greatest extent possible and instead impose reasonable conditions based on the individual’s risk.5Justice for All47. Eliminate the use of a cash bond to secure a defendant’s appearance.48. Expand the use of the public safety risk assessment to limited jurisdiction courts.49. Encourage collaboration between limited jurisdiction courts and pretrial service agencies in superior courts in preparing or providing pretrial risk assessments for limited jurisdiction cases.Establish information sharing between a superior court that has conducted a pretrial risk assessment and a limited jurisdiction court when the defendant is arrested for charges in multiple courts and a release decision must be made in multiple jurisdictions.Request the Arnold Foundation to conduct research on the impact of immigration status on the likelihood of not returning to court if released to ascertain whether it is good public policy to hold these defendants on cash bond.Encourage the Arnold Foundation to conduct periodic reviews to revalidate the Public Safety Assessment [PSA] tool as to its effect on minority populations.53. Provide data to judicial officers to show the effectiveness of the risk assessment tool in actual operation.Develop an educational plan and conduct mandatory training for all judicial officers.Create multi-layer training (court personnel and judicial staff) to include a practical operational curriculum.Develop online training modules for future judicial officers.Host a one-day kick-off summit inviting all stakeholders (law enforcement, prosecutors, county attorneys, public defenders, city council and county board members, the League of Towns and Cities, criminal justice commissions, legislature, and presiding judges) to educate and inform about recommendations of the task force and provide direction for leadership to initiate the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Train judicial officers on the risk principle and the methodology behind the risk assessment tool.Educate judges about the continuum of sentencing options.Educate judges about available community restitution (service) programs and the types of services each offers so that courts may order services that “fit the crime.”Launch a public education campaign to support the adopted recommendations of the task force.6Justice for AllProvide a comprehensive and targeted educational program for all stakeholders (funding authorities, legislators, criminal justice agencies, media, and members of the public) that addresses the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Request that the Chief Justice issue an administrative order directing the education of all full- and part-time judicial officers about alternatives to financial release conditions. Training and educational components should: Inform judges that cash bonds are not favored. Judges should consider the least onerous terms of release of pretrial detainees that will ensure public safety and the defendant’s return to court for hearings. Train limited jurisdiction court judges to more aggressively allow payment of fines through community service, as permitted by A.R.S. § 13-810.Provide focused judicial education on A.R.S. § 11-584(D) and Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.7(D) about how to determine the amount and method of payment, specifically taking into account the financial resources and the nature of the burden that the payment will impose on the defendant and making specific findings on the record about the defendant’s ability to pay.Update bench books and other judicial aides to be consistent with court-adopted recommendations.INNOVATIONS ALREADY UNDER WAYArizona courts have a history of innovation. As pretrial release issues have arisen, local courts have already begun experimenting with initiatives that support fair justice to all in Arizona. Following are a few projects that highlight promising practices that can be considered for expansion to other jurisdictions.2Compliance Assistance ProgramThe Phoenix Municipal Court has recently implemented a Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) that notifies defendants who have had their driver’s licenses suspended that they can come in to court, arrange a new and affordable time2 See Appendix B for detailed project descriptions of Innovations Already Under Way.7Justice for Allpayment program, and make a down payment on their outstanding fine. More than 5,000 people have taken advantage of the program in the first six months.Interactive Voice Response SystemThe Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts and the Glendale and Mesa Municipal courts have each implemented an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system to notify defendants of upcoming court dates, missed payments, or the issuance of warrants. Each jurisdiction has experienced a reduction in the number of people failing to appear—up to 24 percent.3Limited Jurisdiction Mental Competency Proceedings PilotA pilot project coordinated through the Superior Court in Maricopa County authorized Mesa and Glendale municipal courts to conduct Rule 11 mental health competency proceedings originating in their courts on behalf of the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The program has reduced the time to process these matters from six months to 60 days.Justice Court Video Appearance CenterThe Maricopa County Justice Court Video Appearance Center represents the first phase of an initiative to significantly reduce the amount of time defendants are held in custody on misdemeanor charges pending appearance in the justice courts.Pima County – MacArthur Safety & Justice ChallengeIn May 2015, Pima County was selected as one of 11 jurisdictions awarded $150,000 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for Phase I of an initiative to reduce over-incarceration by changing how America thinks about and uses jails. The initiative is a competition to help jurisdictions create fairer, more effective local justice systems through bold innovation. Pima County was later awarded an additional $1.5 million to move forward with Phase 2, which involves creating an implementation plan for broad system change.