Legislators' Short View Killed Va. Driving Fees

Last-minute snags in approving a state budget could delay the vote, but lawmakers said that a repeal is inevitable. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) supports the repeal, and it could take effect the day he signs it. Refunds will be issued to people who have started paying the fees.

How the fee system unraveled offers a window into the legislature, which enacted the penalties last year to raise money for transportation and improve highway safety. But lawmakers failed to consider the reaction from drivers, experiences with similar fees in other states and the resistance from Virginia's court and law enforcement communities.

In the end, a questionable idea was rushed through the legislature in the final days of its session in February 2007.

"This is a bad law," said Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach). "Everyone is guilty. Everyone has dirty hands in this. . . . Everything was done wrong with this particular bill."

After approving the fees, which range from $750 to $3,000, legislators did not publicize them. When the public found out about them in the media before they went into effect July 1, the backlash was swift, aided by the Internet.

"We lost the PR battle," said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax), a main supporter of the fees. "You can't fight the Internet."

Lawmakers failed to realize that Virginia has one of the most comprehensive reckless-driving statutes in the country. Driving 20 mph over the speed limit or failing to use a turn signal, which are considered reckless driving, triggered a $750 abusive-driving fee. Many drivers thought that was too steep.

"Virginia Introduces $3,550 Speeding Ticket," was a headline on one blog. Other blogs quickly linked to it, some with inaccurate but damaging information. Under the legislation, the only drivers subjected to a $3,000 fee are those who cause a fatal accident or those convicted of third DUI offense.

Adding to the confusion, the state Supreme Court published a document on its Web site in June that listed dozens of traffic offenses that would trigger the fees. Many lawmakers said the chart, which was written for lawyers and court clerks, was difficult to understand. For example, it said someone found guilty of driving with an obstructed view could be subjected to the fees. What the court did not explicitly say was that a driver with an obstructed view would have to cause a serious accident to be fined.

The court revised the document after Albo and House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said it was deceptive, but by then it was too late to stop the bad publicity. An Alexandria man started an online petition urging the repeal of the fees; it has 177,000 signatures.

Virginia lawyers, judges and police offers joined the public in rebelling against the fees. The courts and Department of Motor Vehicles quietly resisted them, in part because neither wanted to be responsible for collecting them.

"I haven't spoken to a prosecutor or a judge who thought it was a good idea," said Sen. John S. Edwards (D-Roanoke).

A half-dozen district court judges ruled that the fees were unconstitutional, although other judges upheld them.

There have also been signs that some police officers didn't like their role in imposing the fees. A state report issued in December said reckless driving arrests had steadily declined since the fees had taken effect. The report speculated that police, out of sympathy for angry motorists, were writing fewer tickets for offenses that could trigger a fee. State police denied that.

Legislators also failed to fully explore what was happening in other states with such fees. Albo modeled Virginia's law after New Jersey's, but he and others in the General Assembly were unaware of similar laws in Michigan and Texas, where judges are pushing for them to be repealed. In Michigan and Texas, as in Virginia, licenses are suspended when drivers do not pay the fees.

The abusive-driver fee program is failing in Texas, a recent state report said, because thousands of drivers cannot pay the fines. In Michigan, a circuit court judge said he had e-mailed all of Virginia's delegates and senators in 2006, telling them that the fees were failing in his state. None of the legislators responded, he said.

Howell and Kaine tried to salvage the fees last summer, fearing that the $1.1 billion transportation plan would unravel if the fees, which were designed to raise $65 million, were repealed. Howell and House Republicans conducted focus groups that found public support for the fees, although voters said they wanted them extended to out-of-state drivers.

But highway safety advocates were hesitant to embrace the fines, which made it harder for Howell and Kaine to line up public support to counter the mounting public opposition on the Internet.

Lawmakers said their vote to repeal the fees should serve as a lesson to colleagues in other states: Think twice before you try to use the criminal justice system to generate revenue.

"Everyone cried out 'foul ball,' " said Sen. R. Edward Houck (D-Spotsylvania). "We crossed a line with public trust on how we go down this road of funding transportation."

But House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem), who said the fees would have created safer highways, said he thought the number of Virginians who opposed the fees was relatively small.

"You got to remember, support for starting the American Revolution was about 30 percent," said Griffith, one of the legislature's history buffs. "When you get 20 or 30 percent of the population mad enough, it looks like the entire state is against it."