Speed III - The courts have their say

[Bill Glasheen]

In a previous thread (Speed II - Citizen Revolt), I posted reactions to a new law in Virginia that collected "fees" on the order of a thousand to thousands of dollars on top of fines already imposed by the courts for a range of traffic violations. These fees were a back door way for the state to collect taxes to support myriad highway projects - mostly in a small area of the state. A previous administration had already chosen to cut back on taxes by drastically lowering revenue generated by property taxes. This General Assembly thought it found a way to sneak that money back into their pork barrel programs.

Well... I am proud to say that the county where I live in Virginia is the first to have struck back.

Is that cool or what?

By the way, the online petition against the law has reached over 168,000 signatures.

- Bill

A Henrico County General District Judge has found Virginia’s new and controversial abusive driver fees unconstitutional. Judge Archer Yeatts’ decision will be appealed.

Attorney Craig Cooley and Esther Windmueller argued on behalf of their client, Anthony Price, that because the fees only apply to Virginia drivers they violate the 14th amendment to the constitution.

The state argued the fees are rational and therefore constitutional.

Yeatts instructed Henrico General District Court clerks not to collect civil remedial fees that can reach $1,000 or more for certain driving offenses.

The ruling is binding only in Henrico County but is being immediately appealed to Circuit Court and could eventually reach the Virginia Supreme Court.

- NBC 12

The possibility of the General Assembly reworking Virginia's abusive-driver fees was raised yesterday after the measure failed its first judicial test.

Henrico County General District Judge Archer L. Yeatts III said the civil fees assessed on dangerous drivers are unconstitutional because they apply only to Virginia drivers.

"A 'dangerous' driver is a 'dangerous' driver, whether he or she is a lifelong resident of Virginia or simply passing through on his or her way to another state or country," Yeatts wrote in a six-page ruling.

The ruling is the first since the fee measure passed by the 2007 General Assembly took effect July 1, and it applies only in Henrico County. But legal experts expect a wave of challenges to emerge across the state, possibly creating a logjam of litigation as well as confusion among court clerks and defendants. Another challenge is expected to be heard in Richmond General District Court this morning.

- Richmond Times Dispatch

[Bill Glasheen]

So far it's 0 for 2 for the pork barrel politicos, and 2 for 2 for the citizens of the Commonwealth.

If you ask me, Kaine's future in politics is history. There's nothing like a major public scene to draw attention to a politician's true colors.

- Bill

Driver-fees: A legal epidemic?
Ruling that the new law is unconstitutional mirrors finding by Henrico judge

Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 - 12:09 AM
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

It could become a legal epidemic.

Yesterday, Judge Thomas O. Jones made Richmond General District Court the second to rule that the state's new driver-fees law violates the U.S. Constitution.

"I think it's unconstitutional," said Jones, speaking from the bench. "I have no problem with [making that finding]. For me it's an absolute no-brainer."

Jones said the fees clearly violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because they apply only to Virginia residents and not to out-of-state drivers.

Jones ruled in the reckless-driving case of Joseph C. Fields, who was convicted July 7 and fined $100 plus court costs. Under the fees law, Fields faced an additional $1,050 in fees, to be paid in three equal installments over three years.

After the conviction, Fields' lawyer, G. Barton Chucker, filed a motion challenging the fees.

Jones' written order mirrors a ruling made Thursday by Judge Archer L. Yeatts III of Henrico County General District Court.

The Henrico commonwealth's attorney's office is appealing Yeatts' ruling to the county circuit court. The case involved fees imposed on a man convicted on a sixth charge of driving without a license. A hearing before Judge L.A. Harris Jr. is scheduled for Wednesday.

Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Michael N. Herring said yesterday that he will see what happens in Henrico before deciding whether to appeal the Richmond case.

[RACastanet]

[IJ]

It's good news, Bill, but it sounds like the way out here was mostly a technicality. They issue is one of equal protection just because only VA drivers are being hit. The porkers could simply rewrite the law to nail everyone. When school systems are told they have to allow different groups they don't like fair access to the school space, sometimes their solution is to deny access to all. It's "fair" and passes muster but instead of some losing everyone loses. It'd be nice if the ruling here was against the size of the fee rather than the application.

[Bill Glasheen]

It's difficult to tell how it's going to turn out, Ian.

Consider the following.

1) The longer the pissing match between the opponents of the law and the politicos interested in this odd tax, the worse it makes them look.

2) Albro's original idea was to apply the fee to everyone. His law firm stood to gain since they defend the very people who would have to face the courts. Kaine supposedly was responsible for the change that is leading to this "equal protection" technicality. Why? According to Kaine, he was concerned that these "fees" (a.k.a. taxes) could be problematic if applied to people outside the Commonwealth, since the expressed intent of the law was to generate revenue for Virginia highway programs. Something about it being unconsititutional. (The state constitution says "fines" have to go to the education budget.)

So... It appears that the politicos are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

3) IF they start collecting these excessive fees from out-of-staters, the stink created will be more than a local thing.

Kaine has national aspirations, and was being groomed for a more prominent office. He even was chosen by the Democratic party to give a rebuttal to a Bush speech shortly after being elected. My thinking is that his future in politics is slowly going down the tubes. And to that I say serves him right.

There are some politicos from both parties who are going to pay for this.

- Bill