Angry drivers in France took out a half-dozen speed cameras last week while motorists hurl objects at Australian photo radar vans.
Showing posts with label Washington DC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington DC. Show all posts
Which U.S. Cities Offer Reduced Traffic Ticket Fines for Low-Income Drivers?
Traffic tickets can impose significant financial burdens on low-income individuals, potentially leading to escalating fines, license suspensions, and other legal challenges. Recognizing this, several U.S. cities have implemented programs to reduce or waive traffic ticket costs for low-income drivers, promoting fairness and equity in the justice system.
Why Cities Are Reducing Fines for Low-Income Drivers
Flat-rate fines disproportionately impact those with limited incomes. A $200 ticket may be manageable for some but can be devastating for others living paycheck to paycheck. To address this disparity, cities are adopting income-based payment models, amnesty programs, and alternative sentencing options to make traffic enforcement more equitable.
Cities Offering Reduced Traffic Ticket Fines Based on Income
1. San Francisco, California
San Francisco has been a pioneer in reforming fines and fees. The city implemented recommendations from its Fines and Fees Task Force to reduce financial penalties for low-income residents. Programs include income-based payment plans and the ability to perform community service in lieu of payment.
2. Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C., has introduced several initiatives to alleviate the burden of traffic fines on low-income residents:
-
Community Service Debt Repayment Program: Under the Traffic and Parking Ticket Penalty Amendment Act of 2018, low-income residents (those earning at or below 250% of the federal poverty level) can reduce their civil fines by performing community service. Each hour of service performed reduces the amount owed by an amount equivalent to the District's minimum hourly wage.
-
Automated Traffic Enforcement Equity (ATEquity) Pilot: Launched in 2023, this pilot program allows SNAP (food stamps) recipients to apply for a 50% reduction on one eligible camera ticket (valued at $100 or less) issued within the past 30 days. The program aims to assess the impact of income-based fine reductions on payment rates and future violations.
-
Ticket Amnesty Programs: D.C. has periodically offered amnesty programs, allowing drivers to pay outstanding tickets without additional penalties. For instance, a program running from June to September 2021 enabled drivers to pay the original ticket amounts without late fees, resulting in over 25,500 people settling their debts and approximately $36.2 million in paid fines.
3. Seattle, Washington
Seattle offers Debt Reduction Hearings for low-income individuals unable to pay overdue parking and traffic ticket fines. Eligible participants can request reductions or waivers based on financial hardship.
4. Los Angeles, California
Set to launch in 2026, Los Angeles plans to implement an income-based traffic fine system similar to San Francisco's, offering community service as an alternative for low-income offenders.
5. Chicago, Illinois
Chicago has introduced the Clear Path Relief Pilot Program, allowing residents earning less than 300% of the federal poverty level to pay half the rate for city-issued traffic fines on non-parking meter tickets. The program also offers debt relief options for eligible participants.
6. Minnesota
Minnesota has enacted the Lights On program, replacing traffic tickets for broken headlights and tail lights with vouchers for low-income drivers. These vouchers, worth up to $250, can be redeemed at participating repair shops to cover the costs of repairs.
7. Kansas
Kansas has passed a new law aimed at addressing the financial burden of drivers facing multiple fines and fees. Effective January 2025, the law reduces license reinstatement fees to a single $100 charge, regardless of the number of tickets. It also allows judges to determine when to reinstate a license and reduce fines and fees.
8. El Paso, Texas
El Paso's Municipal Court offers periodic amnesty programs, waiving warrant and collection fees for delinquent tickets. For example, the 2025 program ran from February 17 to March 8, allowing residents to settle outstanding citations without additional penalties .El Paso Texas
9. Highland Park, Michigan
In Highland Park, a traffic amnesty program waives fees on outstanding tickets, enabling residents to pay reduced amounts and clear their driving records. The initiative aims to assist individuals in resolving long-standing fines and restoring their driving privileges. FOX 2 Detroit+1FOX 5 Atlanta+1
10. Fulton County, Georgia
Fulton County has launched a traffic ticket amnesty program offering up to 80% reductions on fines for eligible offenses. The program focuses on non-violent infractions and aims to help residents restore their driving records and avoid further legal complications.FOX 5 Atlanta
Conclusion
Cities across the United States are recognizing the disproportionate impact of traffic fines on low-income individuals and are implementing programs to address this issue. By offering income-based reductions, community service alternatives, and amnesty initiatives, these cities aim to create a more equitable system that acknowledges the financial disparities among residents.
Does Montgomery County Have the Most Speed Cameras in the U.S.?
Short answer: No. Montgomery County, Maryland, operates a sizable and long-running speed camera program, but New York City runs by far the largest network in the United States.
What Montgomery County Actually Operates
Montgomery County’s program has been studied frequently because of its measurable safety impact. An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) evaluation notes that by 2014 the county operated 56 fixed cameras, 30 portable units, and 6 mobile vans, focused on residential streets (≤35 mph) and school zones. The IIHS found large reductions in high-end speeding and serious crashes after deployment. Source: IIHS.
- Impact: Fewer drivers exceeding the limit by 10+ mph and fewer fatal/incapacitating crashes on eligible roads (per IIHS study).
- Focus: Neighborhood streets and school zones rather than every arterial or highway segment.
Who Has the Most Cameras? New York City.
New York City operates the country’s largest speed-camera program. By 2023, NYC DOT reported more than 2,200 cameras across all 750 school zones, and since August 1, 2022, cameras have been authorized to operate 24/7. NYC DOT 2024 Report • NYC Finance: Program Details
| Jurisdiction | Approx. Number of Cameras | Coverage & Hours | Primary Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Montgomery County, MD | ~92 devices noted in 2014 (56 fixed, 30 portable, 6 mobile vans) | Residential streets/school zones; hours vary by location and signage | IIHS |
| New York City, NY | 2,200+ cameras across 750 school zones (as of 2023) | 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, year-round (since Aug 1, 2022) | NYC DOT 2024, NYC Finance |
Bottom Line
The claim that “Montgomery County has the most speed cameras in the U.S.” is incorrect. While Montgomery County is a major and influential program that has demonstrated safety benefits, New York City’s network—expanded to all 750 school zones and operating 24/7—makes it the clear leader by total cameras.
Why the Confusion Persists
- Early adopter effect: Montgomery County launched in 2007 and is often cited in research, so older summaries can sound “largest” without current context.
- Different metrics: Some discussions compare coverage (zones or corridors) rather than raw camera counts, which can blur apples-to-apples comparisons.
- Rapid NYC expansion: NYC grew from a small pilot a decade ago to the nation’s biggest program, especially after the 2022 change to 24/7 enforcement.
Notes: Montgomery County device counts above come from the IIHS study period (through 2014). NYC counts reflect DOT reporting through 2023 and official program pages current to 2024–2025. For the very latest numbers, check the most recent NYC DOT annual report and Montgomery County program updates.
U.S. Cities Using Speed Cameras to Improve Road Safety
In the United States, many cities and counties have adopted speed cameras to reduce traffic violations, enhance public safety, and deter reckless driving. These cameras are strategically placed in areas prone to speeding, including school zones, highway work zones, and residential neighborhoods. In this article, we will explore the various U.S. cities and counties that have implemented speed cameras as part of their efforts to create safer driving environments.
Washington D.C. Installs Crosswalk Cameras to Enhance Pedestrian Safety
Washington D.C. has become a pioneer in pedestrian safety by installing crosswalk cameras. This innovative move aims to improve traffic enforcement, reduce pedestrian accidents, and promote safer streets for both pedestrians and drivers. As one of the first cities to adopt this technology, Washington D.C. is setting an example for other cities looking to improve traffic safety through automated enforcement.
What Are Crosswalk Cameras?
Crosswalk cameras are automated traffic enforcement devices designed to monitor and enforce pedestrian traffic laws at crosswalks. These cameras are strategically placed at high-traffic intersections and are capable of capturing images of vehicles that fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, violating traffic laws. Drivers who break the law receive fines based on the evidence captured by the cameras.
Is Washington, D.C. the First City to Install Crosswalk Cameras?
While Washington D.C. is not the first city to experiment with automated traffic enforcement cameras, it is one of the first to specifically implement crosswalk cameras. This system is a part of D.C.’s broader efforts to reduce pedestrian accidents and improve traffic safety. The District joins a growing list of U.S. cities that are leveraging technology to enforce traffic laws and protect pedestrians.
Why Did D.C. Install Crosswalk Cameras?
Rising Pedestrian Accidents
Pedestrian accidents in Washington D.C. have been a growing concern in recent years. The city has seen an uptick in the number of pedestrian fatalities and injuries, prompting city officials to take action. By installing crosswalk cameras, the city aims to enforce pedestrian right-of-way laws and deter drivers from engaging in risky behavior, such as failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
Vision Zero Initiative
The crosswalk camera program is part of D.C.'s Vision Zero initiative, a comprehensive plan to eliminate traffic-related deaths and injuries by 2030. The program focuses on engineering safer streets, educating the public, and enforcing traffic laws. Crosswalk cameras contribute to these efforts by ensuring that drivers comply with laws designed to protect pedestrians.
Public Awareness and Education
Beyond enforcement, the installation of crosswalk cameras serves to raise awareness about pedestrian safety. By publicly announcing the use of cameras and issuing fines, D.C. hopes to educate drivers on the importance of yielding to pedestrians and following traffic laws.
What Are the Benefits of Crosswalk Cameras?
Improved Pedestrian Safety
The primary benefit of crosswalk cameras is increased pedestrian safety. By holding drivers accountable for not yielding to pedestrians, the cameras help reduce the number of pedestrian accidents. Studies have shown that automated traffic enforcement can lead to a decrease in accidents at monitored locations.
Increased Driver Accountability
Crosswalk cameras provide an effective way to enforce traffic laws and hold drivers accountable for their actions. By issuing fines based on camera footage, the city ensures that violators are penalized, even if they are not caught by a police officer. This helps create a culture of accountability on the roads.
Revenue Generation for City Infrastructure
In addition to improving safety, crosswalk cameras generate revenue that can be reinvested into city infrastructure. The fines collected from traffic violations help fund projects that improve roadways, pedestrian infrastructure, and public safety.
Challenges and Considerations
Privacy Concerns
One of the key challenges associated with crosswalk cameras is privacy. Some residents have raised concerns about surveillance and the potential misuse of camera data. However, city officials argue that the cameras are focused solely on traffic enforcement and are not used for general surveillance.
Public Perception and Acceptance
While crosswalk cameras have been effective in improving safety, some drivers may view them as an infringement on their rights or as a means of generating revenue. Public perception of the program is crucial to its success, and ongoing education and outreach are essential to ensure that the public understands the program's goals and benefits.
Conclusion
Washington D.C.'s decision to install crosswalk cameras represents a significant step forward in the city’s efforts to enhance pedestrian safety. By using automated technology to enforce traffic laws, the city is not only improving safety for pedestrians but also setting an example for other cities considering similar initiatives. As the program continues to evolve, Washington D.C. will likely see reductions in pedestrian accidents and a shift toward safer, more responsible driving habits.
Washington D.C. Has Stop Sign Cameras in School Zones to Protect Students
Map of Washington, DC Stop Sign Cameras Above
Washington D.C. is stepping up enforcement in school zones with a new plan to install 32 stop sign cameras throughout the city. Announced by the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), the initiative is aimed at increasing driver compliance and enhancing child safety near schools.
The move comes as part of D.C.’s broader Vision Zero strategy, which seeks to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2024. The city has already implemented speed cameras and red-light cameras — now, stop sign enforcement cameras are being added to the mix.
Why Stop Sign Cameras in School Zones?
According to DDOT, many drivers fail to make complete stops at stop signs, especially during busy school drop-off and pickup hours. These violations put children, crossing guards, and pedestrians at risk.
Stop sign cameras use automated license plate recognition and video capture to detect violations. If a driver rolls through or completely ignores a stop sign, a citation is automatically issued.
Where Will the Stop Sign Cameras Be Installed?
The DDOT has identified 32 high-risk school zones for installation. While the specific locations haven’t all been made public, the city says areas were selected based on:
-
Historical crash data
-
Community complaints
-
Proximity to schools and crosswalks
-
Traffic volume and pedestrian density
The goal is to target problem areas where non-compliance has led to near-misses or actual accidents.
How Much Is the Fine for a Stop Sign Violation?
Drivers caught by stop sign cameras in Washington D.C. could face fines of up to $100 per violation. The fines are civil penalties and do not add points to a driver’s license, but non-payment can lead to increased penalties or vehicle registration issues.
When Will the Cameras Be Active?
The cameras are expected to begin rolling out in late summer 2025, with full activation citywide by the start of the new school year in Fall 2025.
Community Response and Safety Impact
Parents and school administrators have expressed strong support for the new cameras, citing ongoing safety concerns during student arrival and dismissal times. Studies from other cities show that automated enforcement can lead to 30–50% reductions in stop sign violations.
Conclusion
Washington D.C.’s decision to install stop sign cameras in school zones is a proactive step toward safer streets. As enforcement ramps up, drivers should expect stricter compliance monitoring and should make full stops at all signed intersections — especially near schools.
Photo Enforcement Ballot Measures: Why They Have Never Survived a Public Vote
As cities across the United States grapple with issues of traffic safety and enforcement, photo enforcement measures—such as red-light and speed cameras—have emerged as potential solutions. However, attempts to implement these measures through public ballot initiatives have consistently failed to gain voter approval. This article explores the reasons behind the public's resistance to photo enforcement ballot measures, notable examples of failed initiatives, the implications for traffic safety, and what it means for the future of automated enforcement.
Understanding Photo Enforcement
Photo enforcement refers to the use of automated systems to capture images of vehicles that violate traffic laws, such as running red lights or speeding. While proponents argue that these systems enhance safety and reduce traffic violations, public sentiment has often leaned against their implementation through ballot measures.
Historical Context: Failed Ballot Measures
-
Voter Concerns About Privacy: One of the primary reasons photo enforcement ballot measures have struggled to survive public votes is widespread concern about privacy. Many voters fear that the increased use of surveillance cameras could lead to an infringement on personal freedoms and privacy rights. This sentiment often outweighs arguments about the potential safety benefits.
-
Perception of Revenue Generation: Voters frequently view photo enforcement as a revenue-generating scheme rather than a genuine safety initiative. When the public perceives that a measure is primarily designed to generate income for the city rather than improve safety, they are less likely to support it. The fear of "money traps," where municipalities profit from traffic violations, can lead to strong opposition.
-
Distrust of Government Motives: Distrust in government agencies can play a significant role in public sentiment against photo enforcement measures. Voters may question the transparency and accountability of how funds generated from fines would be used, leading to skepticism about the overall intent behind the ballot measures.
-
Concerns About Effectiveness: Critics of photo enforcement often argue that these systems do not effectively reduce accidents or improve traffic safety. Instead, they claim that such measures merely displace accidents rather than prevent them. This belief can significantly impact voter support when considering the implementation of these systems.
-
Successful Campaigns Against Initiatives: In various jurisdictions, organized campaigns have successfully mobilized public opposition against photo enforcement ballot measures. These campaigns often highlight the drawbacks and potential negative consequences of automated enforcement, swaying public opinion against the proposals.
Notable Examples of Failed Ballot Measures
-
San Francisco Proposition G (2010): This measure aimed to authorize the city to use speed cameras in specific locations to combat speeding and improve road safety. Despite support from some city officials and traffic safety advocates, it was met with strong opposition from civil liberties groups and ultimately failed in the ballot, reflecting the public's concerns about surveillance and privacy.
-
Red Light Camera Measures in Los Angeles (Various Years): Over the years, several proposals to expand the use of red-light cameras in Los Angeles have faced rejection at the polls. Voters expressed concerns about the perceived focus on revenue generation over public safety and the effectiveness of such measures in reducing traffic violations.
-
Arizona Red-Light Camera Initiative (2010): Arizona residents voted on a ballot measure that sought to expand red-light camera use throughout the state. However, the initiative was met with opposition due to fears about privacy, government surveillance, and the financial motivations behind the program, leading to its failure.
Implications for Traffic Safety
The failure of photo enforcement ballot measures to gain public support has significant implications for traffic safety efforts. Without these systems, cities may struggle to find effective alternatives to address speeding and reckless driving, leading to continued accidents and fatalities on the roads.
In the absence of photo enforcement, law enforcement agencies may need to allocate more resources to traditional policing methods, which can strain budgets and manpower. Moreover, without automated enforcement systems, the opportunity for consistent and fair traffic law enforcement may diminish, creating inequities in how traffic violations are addressed.
The Future of Photo Enforcement Initiatives
Given the history of failed public votes, cities considering photo enforcement must find new ways to engage with the community and build trust. Here are some strategies that could improve public perception and potentially lead to successful ballot measures in the future:
-
Public Education Campaigns: Effective communication about the benefits of photo enforcement and how it can enhance safety is essential. Engaging community members through educational campaigns can help alleviate fears and address concerns.
-
Transparent Use of Funds: Clearly outlining how revenue from photo enforcement will be allocated can help build trust with the public. Demonstrating a commitment to reinvesting funds into community safety initiatives may increase voter support.
-
Pilot Programs: Implementing pilot programs that demonstrate the effectiveness of photo enforcement in reducing accidents and improving safety can provide valuable data and build public trust. Success stories from other jurisdictions can also bolster community confidence in these measures.
Other Public vote outcomes
- In Mukilteo, Washington 70% of the voters banned the cameras and in Anaheim, California 73% voted against them.
- Earlier in 2010, 61% of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, 86% of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras.
- The November 2009 elections included three votes: 72% said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio, and College Station,
- Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. 66% of Steubenville
- Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the 1990s, speed cameras lost by 66% of the vote in Peoria, Arizona, and Batavia, Illinois.
- In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64% of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras.
Conclusion
While photo enforcement ballot measures have yet to gain traction in public votes, understanding the underlying concerns can help cities refine their approaches to traffic safety. By addressing privacy concerns, ensuring transparency, and engaging communities effectively, cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose may find a path toward successful implementation of photo enforcement initiatives in the future. As public safety remains a top priority, the conversation around photo enforcement will undoubtedly continue, shaping the landscape of traffic enforcement across the country.
DC's Speed Camera Issues 33,000 Tickets in 3 Months
In the nation's capital, automated speed cameras have become a key tool for enforcing traffic laws and improving road safety. Recently released data highlights the locations in Washington, D.C., where these cameras are issuing the highest number of citations.
What is Washington, D.C.'s Truck Restriction Camera Program?
Washington D.C.'s Truck Restriction Camera Program utilizes automated enforcement cameras to monitor and enforce truck restrictions on certain roads within the District. The program aims to ensure that commercial vehicles adhere to designated truck routes and restrictions, promoting safety and minimizing the impact of heavy traffic on specific streets.
Here's how the program typically works:
Vehicle Occupancy Detection Cameras Are Coming
These Cameras Detect The Number of People in Car
Cal Trans is in trial with these cameras now.
San Rafael Bridge has a trial
495 Capital beltway toll lanes trial
John Chambers of Cisco Systems describes the network problem
Cameras Now Used For Crime Prevention & Surveillance
It was recently announced that Washington DC trumped Chicago in the sheer volume of photo enforcement. As reported by Photoenforced.com: "They now have by far the most speed cameras, stop sign cameras and red light cameras per capital." While this is certainly good news when it comes to keeping the roads and motorists of the city safer, there are also much wider implications. Currently, Washington along with some other major US cities, are beginning to shift focus on their approaches to crime where cameras are concerned - real-time monitoring in particular becoming a goal of Washington law enforcement. As a result, it’s likely that we’ll begin to see cameras used in a far more broader role when it comes to crime prevention and criminal enforcement, but there could be other implications.
Cameras and Crime
While we may often assume that road and traffic cameras are essentially in place to capture and deter traffic-related crimes, modern police are becoming much more reliant on cameras as a general tool for combating crime. Washington police, in particular, are increasingly focusing their efforts around captured surveillance footage. In fact, according to rt.com "Law enforcement is looking to get real-time access in order to put the entire city on constant watch." This is of course, a divisive issue. The police department is aware of how valuable resource cameras are, and this is perhaps even more relevant in Washington given the huge amount of cameras that are in place in the city. Having greater access, especially real-time monitoring, could see a huge increase in crime prevention. As stated in the Washington Post, cameras are already a fundamental tool in combating crime for local police forces: "Investigators retrieved video from the Metropolitan Police Department’s 123 closed-circuit television cameras and the District’s network of red light and Department of Transportation cameras 931 times in fiscal 2012 - an increase of 15 percent over the previous year, according to police department data.". While some opponents to an increased level of surveillance argue that real-time monitoring and additional use of cameras is a breach of civil rights, the numbers do clearly show that police are finding cameras increasingly crucial in investigations.
Prevention and Statistics
One of the problems facing both sides of this debate, however, is the actual data on camera effectiveness. While Washington Police, for example, may have increased their use of cameras, what evidence is there that they are an effective tool? As explained by Syracuse.com: "The biggest problem may be the systems are too new: experts say the lasting impact of cameras may not be known until several years worth of data can be analyzed. Generally, the studies that have been conducted have found that premeditated crimes do tend to decline, but crimes of passion are not affected as much." Cameras may certainly help police after the event but are unlikely to be an effective deterrent for a desperate addict. This is one potential problem, but on the other hand, being able to monitor in real-time could allow police to take the action they need. That said, drug enforcement, in particular, is itself seeing a shift in focus, as stated by the Washington Post: "Four decades after the federal government declared war on narcotics, the prevailing tough-on-drugs mentality is giving way to a more nuanced view, one that empathizes treatment and health nearly as much as courtrooms and law enforcement, according to addiction specialists and other experts."
Effectiveness
One of the major questions that remain is just how effective will the increased use of cameras be? While in Washington there has been a huge surge in the number of cameras, there are certainly ways for motorists to be aware of where cameras are and whether they are working already. Conversely, there are also devices that streamline the camera and toll process available at many retailers. Ultimately, the evidence does suggest that cameras, whether traffic-related or otherwise, are having a profound effect on crime and criminal enforcement. How Washington proceeds could be an indicator of things to come for the rest of the US.
Washington DC Wins the Photo Enforcement 2014 Award Surpassing Chicago
 |
| Washington DC - Speed Cameras, Red Light Cameras, Crosswalk Cameras, Stop Sign Cameras & Toll Road Cameras |
 |
DC Installing Stop Sign Cameras
Come to A Complete Stop at Intersections Like This
Washington D.C.'s Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that MPD would look to install between eight and 10 Stop sign cameras before the end of the year. D.C. has become notorious as an area that generates huge profits off of photo enforcement tickets. Red light cameras and speeding cameras are installed in numerous parts of the city. There is a new kind of automated photo enforcement that is set to hit the city, and it will be targeting one of the most common violations while behind the wheel: rolling through a stop sign.
PhotoEnforced.com currently has 28 stop sign cameras listed on its website. The web site allows anyone to search the database and add new locations.
Washington DC Made $55M on Cameras Tickets in 2011
Read the full article
DMV Driving Points & Fines
State Map | Red Light Camera Fine $ | Red Light Camera Points | Speed Camera Fine $ | Speed Camera Points |
Alabama | $50 | |||
Arizona | $180 | no Points | $250-$250 | 2-3 Points |
Arkansas | $50 | |||
California | $446 | 1 Point | ||
Colorado | $90 | 4 Points | $40-80 | 4 Points |
Delaware | $75-$230 | |||
District of Columbia | $75 | 2 Points | $75 | 2 Points |
Florida | $75-$125 | |||
Georgia | $70 | 3 Points | ||
Hawaii | $77 | |||
Illinois | $100 | 20 Points | $250 or 25 | 20 points |
Indiana | $100 | |||
Iowa | $45-$150 | $45-$150 | ||
Kansas | $100 | |||
Louisiana | $100-$140 | No Points | ||
Maryland | $100 | 2 Points | $40 - $1,000 | No Points |
Michigan | $100 | |||
Minnesota | $130 | |||
Mississippi | $100 | |||
Missouri | $100 | |||
Nevada | $600-$1,000 | 4 Points | ||
New Jersey | $75 | No Points | ||
New Mexico | $70-$250 | $70-$250 | ||
New York | $50-$100 | 3 Points | ||
North Carolina | $75-$100 | 3 Points | ||
Ohio | $100-$200 | $100-$200 | ||
Oklahoma | $100 | |||
Oregon | $355 | $355 | ||
Pennsylvania | $100 | 3 Points | ||
Rhode Island | $85 | |||
South Dakota | $89 | No Points | ||
Tennessee | $50-$100 | $50-$100 | ||
Texas | $75-$200 | No Points | $75-$200 | |
Virginia | $100 - $200 | 4 Points | ||
Washington | $124 | $124 | ||
West Virginia | ||||
Wisconsin | $75 |
Please make suggested updates of information in the comments section below.