On The Front Lines
Charlottesville Judge Upholds Abusive Drivers Fees; Rutherford Institute Attorneys to Take Case Challenging Driver Fees Before Appeals Court
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. -- In the latest legal battle over the constitutionality of Virginia's abusive driver fees, a General District Court judge in Charlottesville has ruled in favor of the state, declaring that there is at least some conceivable basis for the fees. The ruling comes in response to a motion filed by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute on behalf of a motorist who was charged with reckless driving for exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 20 miles per hour while driving within the City of Charlottesville. Institute attorneys will appeal the District Court's ruling.
"Constitutional safeguards against undue, extreme and discriminatory punishments have long been a cherished right of the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Unfortunately, such safeguards have now been placed in jeopardy by the General Assembly as a result of its passage of legislation intended to impose exorbitant abusive driver fees upon Virginians. These fees are a misguided way of pursuing a policy of road improvement, as well as being legally questionable."
In objecting to the imposition of the fees, Institute attorneys had argued that the fees violated the guarantee to equal protection of the law set forth in the federal and state constitutions because the fees apply only to state residents. Institute attorneys also argued that the fees were unconstitutional because they had no relationship to the purported financial burdens imposed on the Commonwealth of Virginia. Furthermore, Institute attorneys pointed out that the vehicle-related offenses targeted by the fees and the legislation constituted an improper attempt to avoid the provisions of the Virginia Constitution requiring that fines be dedicated to the state's Literary Fund supporting education.
The fees, enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in 2007 as part of a transportation bill, expressly target Virginia residents who commit certain traffic offenses, including driving under the influence, reckless driving, driving with a suspended or revoked license, and for accumulating eight or more demerit points through other violations. Referred to as "civil remedial fees" in the legislation, the fees are designated for deposit into the state's Highway Maintenance and Operation Fund. According to the law, persons who commit the targeted offenses place "significant financial burdens upon the Commonwealth." Thus, the fees, which range from $750 to $3000, are intended by legislators to compensate the Commonwealth.
Since the legislation was put into effect in July 2007, numerous judicial challenges have been raised throughout the state, with varied results in the courts. In raising a legal challenge to the driver's fees in the Charlottesville courts, Rutherford Institute attorneys asserted that there is no rational basis for excluding out-of-state drivers from the obligation to reimburse the Commonwealth and there is no logical connection between the exorbitant fees imposed upon Virginia's drivers and the real cost to the Commonwealth from the commission of the specified traffic offenses. Furthermore, the Institute's motion argued that the legislation's funneling of the proceeds to the Highway Maintenance and Operation fund violates the purpose of Va. Const. Art. VIII, § 8, which requires that monies obtained by the Commonwealth as a result of criminal offenses be deposited in the Literary Fund.
