Defending Civil Remedial Fees

Yesterday, the Governor and leaders from the General Assembly defended the imposition of civil remedial fees, sample stories are here and here. Their defense focused on the basic premise that civil remedial fees "make the roads safer." First, as we pointed out here, there is no support for that statement. No study has shown that the imposition of civil remedial fees in other states has increased road safety. Second, the spin ignores the first sentence in the new law: "The purpose of the civil remedial fees imposed in this section is to generate revenue." The word "safe" is not found anywhere in the statute. Addressing the "increase safety" argument, we ask again: If the plan achieves something not seen anywhere else and "road safety" increases, in turn decreasing the amount of civil remedial fees imposed and collected, does that mean the transportation bill will be underfunded?

Civil Remedial Fees - now online

Although maybe not technically the first offender, the first "reported" offender subject to the new civil remedial fees was charged with DUI in Alexandria at 2:18 in Alexandria. In this article, Delegate Kilgore explains the purpose of the civil remedial fees. On one hand, "Kilgore said the basic premise of the transportation abuser fee is that Virginia's most dangerous drivers should proportionately pay their share for safety improvements to roadways rather than placing the bulk of the burden on the general public." On the other hand, Kilgore said that "The fees are a proven way to cut back on aggressive and reckless driving, which benefits all road users." So, if the plan is successful, does that mean the transportation bill will be underfunded?

Last on Civil Remedial Fees

Although the recently implemented law regarding civil remedial fees continues to generate discussion, it is reasonable to assume the law will not go away. Other states, Michigan, Texas, New Jersey and New York have implemented similar programs (although their programs are enforced against non-resident drivers, as well). Citizens have complained that the fees create a "Debtor's Prison" where less than half the fees are actually collected and in Michigan, where only 40% of the fees have been collected, there has been no confirmation that road safety has increased. The law will be tweaked, but it will not go away because, as it says in its text, the law will "generate revenue" for the government to spend. Legislators find it easier to turn on a source of revenue than to shut it off.

Outrage over "civil remedial fees" - too little too late?

With only days left before new Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-206.1 (you have to scroll down to read the text of this section) takes effect, we are finally paying attention. The stated purpose in the new statute is "to generate revenue from drivers whose proven dangerous driving behavior places significant financial burdens upon the Commonwealth" (somebody will have to explain that one to me). The Virginia Supreme Court has published an explanation of the so-called "civil remedial fees." The court has no discretion over assessing the fees. The fees are only assessable against Virginia residents. The Washington Post has an article detailing the chilly reception received by Governor Kaine at his regular WTOP call-in show. The Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star called for voters to demand "the repeal of a schedule of afflictions that reflects the spirit of the Sheriff of Nottingham a lot more than that of any of our Founders." Is it too late to do that, or will a combination of apathy and inertia prove too daunting?

Northern Virginia Transportation Authority files suit to establish its validity to raise taxes

Lost amongst the uproar of the wrongheaded civil remedial fees is the General Assembly's broad delegation of authority to regional transportation authorities. While the General Assembly contemplates a special session to review the civil remedial fees, the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority has filed this Complaint in the Arlington Circuit Court seeking "judicial authority for the validity" of the various powers delegated to the Authority. The most egregious power granted to the regional authorities is the power "To decide and vote to impose certain fees and taxes authorized under law for imposition or assessment by the Authority, provided that any such fee or tax assessed or imposed is assessed or imposed in all counties and cities embraced by the Authority." Therefore, members of the General Assembly can continue to maintain a "no tax" policy with somewhat of a straight face, because the legislature delegated that authority to several regional authorities composed of unelected board members.

Rutherford Institute steps into fray over civil remedial fees

The Rutherford Institute, a public interest law firm located in Charlottesville, has threatened to challenge the civil remedial fees imposed by the General Assembly. In a letter, Institute president John Whitehead called the fees "a misguided way of pursuing a policy of road improvement, as well as being legally questionable."

Front Royal may opt out of civil remedial fees

This article suggests that Front Royal's town council will vote to "opt out" from enforcement of the new civil remedial fees statute. That action will certainly generate some litigation, as Attorney General Bob McDonnell said, "We do not believe a locality can get out from a statewide provision."

Nobody wants credit for civil remedial fees, even the bill's patron

Roscoe Reynolds was the patron of the now controversial bill that imposed the civil remedial fees on top of fines, court costs and other charges for certain traffic offenses. In this article, Senator Reynolds said that he "can foresee serious potential problems with the new law." He added that "Those consequences are that people will lose their licenses because they cannot pay the large fines, be forced to drive anyway because they must work and then end up in jail, where they will become an additional drain on taxpayers." He didn't say that he was the patron of the bill that passed. What is missing from this entire discussion is somebody from the General Assembly standing up to say, "Yeah, I voted for that bill because its a good law, and I'm proud I did it." They are hoping it goes away, like it usually does.

Bob Battle pledges to contest civil remedial fees

Virginia attorney Bob Battle announced that he is supporting a petition to repeal the civil remedial fees imposed by the General Assembly and has designed a tee shirt: Virginia is for speed traps. Meanwhile, more legislators say they will support a repeal of the law.

Michigan judge said he warned General Assembly about the failure of civil remedial fees

This article in the Washington Post, which was referenced in a comment to one of our earlier posts, includes additional details supporting much of what we wrote: much of the money is not collected, leading to additional license suspensions "creating a permanent underclass;" in New Jersey (and Michigan as we noted) studies showed that "there is no way to determine whether the fees 'conclusively impact highway safety;'" Michigan "has issued 750,000 suspension notices for failure to pay the fees;" and a Michigan judge said that prior to passage of the bill he "e-mailed all 140 legislators [in the General Assembly], explaining why he thought the program was a failure in Michigan." A study commissioned in New Jersey in response to complaints about the program found the fees disproportionately effected lower income residents, but the recommendation was not to abandon the program because "it's an integral part of New Jersey's finance system." Henry County Commonwealth's Attorney Bob Bushnell said "The way this thing works out, it is going to have an absolutely ruinous effect on financially challenged Virginians. . . To my knowledge, no one from the police was consulted. [Commonwealth's Attorneys] weren't consulted. The court clerks weren't consulted. Had it come up, I think the General Assembly would have been aware of all kinds of concerns from Virginians about the unanticipated downside to this program."
In another article, Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William, now says he opposes increased fees on bad drivers."

Updates

DC Administrative Judge Roy Pearson's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. However, this case is so far from over, it's only worth a passing mention. The prevailing defendants have a pending motion for the award of attorney's fees, and the District still is considering whether to reappoint Pearson. Pearson will probably appeal every adverse ruling. And so it goes. . . .

Civil Remedial Fees dissension continues to gain momentum. Even Portfolio Weekly, a publication distributed in the Tidewater area primarily highlighting entertainment news, has an article. An internet petition has gathered nearly 100,000 "signatures."

Civil Remedial Fees - Is a change a'coming?

Governor Kaine acknowledged the firestorm raging and stated on his radio show that "I think that's something the legislature may address in the future." Although it can be argued that the whole concept is ridiculous, the issue that is raising the most ire is the fact that the civil penalty applies only to Virginia residents. In this article, Del. G. Glenn Oder or Newport News said the new law is "clearly a mistake. The most egregious part is that it only hits Virginia drivers." Yet, he voted for the law.