If you can get people acking the wrong question, it doesn’t matter how they answer it. The question of why in-state offenders have to pay and out-of-state offenders don’t is worthwhile, but it totally begs the larger question: Is it right to use what should be law-enforcement to raise revenue? How is this different in principle from the old-time speed traps that little hole-in-the-wall jurisdictions used to set up to milk travellers? From http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-08-14-0081.html
Driver fees are upheld by Henrico judge
In reversing lower court, circuit judge says it’s OK to exclude nonresidents
Tuesday, Aug 14, 2007 - 12:09 AM Updated: 12:45 AM
By BILL MCKELWAY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
A Henrico County judge yesterday turned back a challenge to Virginia’s new driver fees, adding another take to the growing controversy.
Reversing the findings a lower-court judge issued less than two weeks ago, Circuit Judge L.A. Harris Jr. said yesterday that efforts to overthrow the hefty fees because they don’t apply to out-of-state drivers fail because the legislature had a rational basis for passing the law.
Laws do not need to be fair or politically correct if they have a rational basis, Harris wrote, acknowledging that fees in at least four other states incorporate both in-state and out-of-state drivers.
“The two classes in this case do not have an equal obligation to pay for Virginia roads,” Harris wrote. “Clearly, Virginia residents have more of an obli-gation to finance their own roads than do nonresidents driving through on Virginia’s highways.”
The ruling, which attorneys for Henrico resident Anthony O. Price said will be appealed, apparently means that fees of up to $3,000 will be resumed in Henrico, after a brief hiatus imposed by a lower-court judge Aug. 2.
But the Henrico case is only one matter in a number of challenges that have appeared across the state.
Challenges have been filed in Northern Virginia, Roanoke, Hanover County and Richmond, although Harris’ opinion apparently is the first to be issued by an appeals-court judge. Esther J. Windmueller, one of Price’s lawyers, said yesterday that she expects to take the case directly to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The fees, which went into effect July 1, have raised bitter, grass-roots opposition across the state. Nearly 200,000 names have been signed on a petition against them. While some legislators and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine have described the fees as directed at curbing abusive drivers, the fees apply to first-time offenders as well as longtime violators.
The fees are described in state law as being designed “to generate revenue” from those with proven dangerous-driving behavior.
The fees are expected to produce $65 million in state highway money annually.
The fees apply to a spectrum of offenses. In July 2008, the Department of Motor Vehicles will assess a new round of fees based on demerit points accumulated from fee-generating offenses during the previous year.
“It raises a whole new issue of double jeopardy,” said Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, who opposes the fees.
Marshall said the judge’s decision yesterday in Henrico places more pressure on legislators who face constituent opposition to the law but now see it being upheld in the courts.
“It will mean they have to promise [to voters] to overthrow a law that the courts have approved,” Marshall said.
Two Republican leaders who have strongly backed the constitutionality of the fees issued a statement yesterday reaffirming their promise to bring out-of-state drivers under the law next year, even after Harris’ ruling.
“We . . . remain committed to enacting this change, as well as to making whatever changes are necessary to ensure this safety measure applies only to the most egregious and regular abusers of the rules and laws of Virginia’s roads,” House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, and Senate Majority Leader Walter A. Stosch, R-Henrico, said in a joint statement released yesterday.
Harris, though, said the decision to exclude out-of-state drivers could be regarded as rational because the costs of collecting on a judgment outweigh any benefit. Nor is Virginia law suited to collecting fees from out-of-state drivers, he said.
Kaine has said that he will back changes to the law but stands by its constitutionality.
Focus on the issue will shift to Arlington County Circuit Court tomorrow. A hearing is scheduled in a case in which the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority is seeking a court declaration that key provisions of the transportation package are constitutional.
At stake are some $130 million in road bonds. Tax opponents argue that the authority doesn’t have the power to effectively impose taxes to pay off the bonds. They also argue that the remedial fees are actually fines and should go into the state Literary Fund for school projects.
A taxpayer group has filed suit in Richmond Circuit Court seeking to throw out multiple elements of the transportation-funding package, including the new driver fees.