"Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr." Why Did Kaine Delete Out-of-State Drivers?

By: Lowell
Published On: 7/14/2007 9:56:29 AM

Thanks to "Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr." for the following analysis.

I'm not clear why hitting out of state drivers would necessarily be constitutionally impermissible.  It seems to me the likely explanation for Kaine's deletion is that it would be an administrative nightmare the way the plan is current structured.  Supposed you hit a D.C. driver with a $2,000 abuser fee payable over three years.  Tracking that persons address and getting them to pay could be a total nightmare.  Are you going to ask them to keep sending you address updates?  Are you going to hire attorneys in D.C. to get them to pay?  How do you collect it?  Under the Interstate Drivers License Compact, the other state will not suspend their license for non-payment of the "abuser fee" unless that jurisdiction also has an abuser fee system which means a suspension only has leverage in the handful of states that has adopted these "fees." 

Also, you can't get around it by giving a different payment schedule for someone who lives out of state.  For example, you cannot say a Marylander has to pay $2K right now, but a Virginian gets 3 years - that would violate Equal Protection, Privileges and Immunities, etc.

With Virginians, they're here, in the Commonwealth, they pop up every now and then, you can use their license as leverage because you control it.  I suspect Kaine modified the applicability to out of state drivers for those kinds of problems, not constitutional ones.  I'm pretty sure they levy fees on out of state residents for all kinds of reasons - fishing licenses, hunting permits, court costs.  Imagine if they had millions and millions of unpaid assessements on the books.

I'm not necessarily defending it, but I suspect that's what the thinking was.  These are the kinds of headaches you get into when you start using the criminal system to be the tax collection system.  You're putting a square peg into a round hole and pounding really hard.  It doesn' t work.

Is that all clear now?  Ha.  Seriously, though, the bottom line is that lawmakers really screwed up here by "using the criminal system to be the tax collection system."  They're two separate things, and they should be treated that way.  The only reason they did it this way was to raise needed revenues while avoiding looking like they "raised taxes."  The expression "too clever by half" comes to mind.  In other words, stupid.

Comments



Makes sense to me, (Teddy - 7/14/2007 11:00:52 AM)
Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr. The cost of collection from out-of-staters would probably exceed the income therefrom--- not to mention the outrage resulting, and the resultant distaste for Virginia overall--- it might even discourage tourism. Your best comment was your last paragraph.


Bullocks (JScott - 7/14/2007 11:10:38 AM)
Everytime you get a speeding ticket, and this driver quite a few over the eyars, on the way to the beach in North Carolina they have no problem tracking you and collecting from you regardless of what State your from.Oh Dare County can only imagine hopw much revenue they takle in. You do not pay your fine or in this case "fees" you license gets suspended and flagged. Get caught while driving then, siezure of the license etc...you'll pay quick. Bottom line, you offend, go to court and take the medicine..payment plan or not. What were saying is State Police can write tickets all day long to anyone speeding on 95 regardless of origin and we have no worries about collecting the fines but were worried about this. Sounds to me they are setting us up for the excuse for not going through with the whole thing instead having to admitt it was bullocks.


You continue to go to North Carolina (Teddy - 7/14/2007 11:20:08 AM)
despite having been nabbed (apparently more than once?) for excessive speed? Slow learner, ahem? Is the fee, fine, or tax as excessive as Virginia's? I still think disgruntled out-of-staters might well decide NOT to visit various tourist spots in the Old Dominion--- too dicey.

I remember there used to be AAA signs warning drivers of "speed traps" just outside certain town limits in Georgia during the 1950's and before. Wouldn't it have been a hoot if Virginia had applied these dramatic fees to out-of-staters, and AAA posted warning signs at Virginia's borders?



You're Not Reading What I Said (Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr. - 7/14/2007 11:25:21 AM)
That's because the NC ticket involved FINES, not FEES.

Under the Compact, they are required to treat you the same as they would treat you in their state.  If their state doesn't have "abuser" FEES that they suspend for then they don't suspend.

If an out of state driver in VA doesn't pay their FINES they lose their license out of state.  FEES are different because other states don't have them.  THAT is the problem.



I'm a bit unclear... (Eric - 7/14/2007 11:33:20 AM)
Is it that Virginia can not levee fees on out of state drivers or that those fees have almost no hope of being collected (at a reasonable cost to Virginia)?

If its the second, then in theory the law could have included out of state drivers - although it would have been financially foolish.

Either way, Not Harry Byrd has found the right words to sum up  one of our big complaints about this issue... "using the criminal system to be the tax collection system".  Well stated.



It has to be called a "fee" to go to roads (cvllelaw - 7/14/2007 11:38:37 AM)
If it is a fine, it goes to the Literary Fund for new school construction.  Which is OK, but it doesn't go to roads.

So it has to be something other than a fine.  They decided to call it a "fee" and make it assessable through DMV.  DMV has no authority over out-of-state licensees.



"What a tangled web we weave (Teddy - 7/14/2007 12:09:24 PM)
when first we practice to deceive." If the republican cabal in the House of Delegates hadn't tried to deceive their supposed base about the TAX they sought to levy, by calling it a Fee, (which they had to do both to avoid the dreaded 3-letter word t-a-x, and to make sure the money raised went to transportation rather than to the Literary Fund) then we would not have this utterly absurd hoorah's nest now. If the republican cabal in HOD had had any backbone, neither would they have dumped the decision to levy taxes on the unelected Transportation Council as they did. If the republican cabal in the HOD were not so intent on refusing to hand a Democratic Governor any kind of legislative victory (n this case, transportation), neither would they have been so stupidly adamant about not governing--- Anything else, and they might have to, ugh!, cooperate with Democrats to get something done.

Nothing like ridiculous, rigid partisanship to bring a halt to permitting government to achieve any significant results, nationally as well as locally.



In other word, the Republican House of Delegates (Lowell - 7/14/2007 12:09:40 PM)
screwed up AGAIN, and Gov. Kaine fixed it?  Sure sounds like it.


Business interests wouldn't stand for it (mkfox - 7/14/2007 2:10:06 PM)
With truckers on I-81, NoVa tourists, auto racing fans and Va. being touted #1 state for business, other states' businesses as well as Va. businesses that rely on interstate commerce and tourism would be out in full force against the measure. That of course doesn't make the residents-only provision any more acceptable to me!