VIA Feature
John L. Knapp is professor emeritus at the Uni-
www.via.vt.edu
by John L. Knapp and W. Grace Ng
8
Abusive driver fees, part of the transportation revenue package adopted by the 2007 General Assembly
after a contentious session about Virginia’s transportation problems, have been a hot news topic. Many
citizens have registered their displeasure, and several
court cases are challenging the legality of the abuser fees
that apply only to Virginia drivers.1 In addition, another
part of the new transportation funding law, which gives
tax powers to transportation authorities in Northern
Virginia and Hampton Roads, is under court review
because plaintiffs argue that such powers are limited to
popularly elected governments.2 This article, however, is
limited to discussion of the abusive driver fees issue.
Fines imposed on bad driving are usually not considered a revenue-raising device, with the possible
exception of small-town speed traps. In regard to
speeding laws, “their purpose is not to tax speeding,
but to prevent it.”3 Fines are designed to impose a cost
for bad driving that places others’ lives and property in
jeopardy. When confronted with fines and additional
penalties such as imprisonment, suspension of driving
permits, or much higher insurance premiums, offenders
Virginia Issues & Answers | Fall 2007
versity of Virginia and senior economist, Business
and Economics Section, at the University’s Weldon
Cooper Center for Public Service. During the course
of his long career he worked for the federal government, the Virginia state government, the Federal
Reserve Bank of Richmond, and the Cooper Center.
Knapp is a former member of the Governor’s Advisory Board of Economists and a past president of
the Council of Professional Associations on Federal
Statistics, the Association for University Business
and Economic Research, and the Virginia Association of Economists. He is a frequent contributor to
Virginia Issues & Answers on state and local government fiscal issues.
W. Grace Ng is a student research assistant at the
Cooper Center. A third-year student at the University of Virginia, she is majoring in economics and
foreign affairs. Her previous work experience includes time as a congressional staff assistant and as
a commercial law course assistant. In addition to her
time at the Cooper Center, she currently works as a
student advisor and tutor for Kaplan Test Prep and
Admissions. She hopes to pursue graduate work in
economics and law.
Table 1: Virginia abusive driver fees
Offense
Fee
Driving with a suspended/revoked license
$250 x 3 years
Reckless driving
$350 x 3 years
Driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI)
$750 x 3 years
Any other misdemeanor conviction for a driving violation
$300 x 3 years
Any felony conviction for a driving violation
$1,000 x 3 years
Source: Office of the Executive Secretary, Virginia Supreme Court, “Civil Remedial
Fees.” July 19, 2007; www.courts.state.va.us/publications/hb_3202.pdf (accessed Aug. 13,
2007).
The 2007 omnibus transportation bill
Funding for the omnibus transportation bill passed
during the 2007 General Assembly session relied on
transfers from the General Fund plus new transportation non-tax revenues (Figure 1). The abusive driver
fees, when fully operational in FY 2010, are expected to
yield $65.4 million, or 13.6 percent of the total revenue
of $474.3 million, including General Fund transfers,
and 41.3 percent of the total anticipated new non-tax
Figure 1
Funding the 2007 omnibus transportation bill
revenue of $158.2 million. Other new sources of non-tax
revenue are vehicle registration fees and penalties for
violation of truck weight limits.
To put the abusive driver fees in perspective, the
expected revenue from the new fees can be compared
to current state revenue from fines. Money from fines,
based on a constitutional requirement, is earmarked for
the Literary Fund, a special fund that provides low-interest loans to local school divisions for construction of
public schools.4 In FY 2006, the Literary Fund collected
$62 million from fines, forfeitures, court fees, penalties,
and escheats.5 A breakdown showing how much of this
amount was represented by traffic fines is unavailable,
but we can safely assume that traffic fines, although a
major component, did not represent the full amount
collected. Thus the $65.4 million in new abusive driver
fees, if collected as projected, will more than double the
amount the commonwealth receives in penalties for traffic violations.
Why the fee does not apply to non-Virginians
One major criticism of the program is that the abusive
driver fees do not apply to out-of-state drivers. Because
of the aforementioned constitutional earmarking of
fines for the Literary Fund, any new fines would go
to that fund. By employing abusive driver fees rather
than fines, the legislation made it possible to reserve the
money for the transportation fund. The fees do not apply to non-residents because the charges are technically
an administrative licensing fee, tied to the issuance of a
Virginia state driver’s license. It is neither practical nor
logistically feasible to collect abusive driver fees from
drivers who have an out-of-state license.
Constitutionality
While imposing fees rather than fines was a clever
way to circumvent Virginia’s constitutional restriction,
it potentially violates the U.S. Constitution by treating
Virginia’s abusive drivers differently than out-of-state
abusive drivers. In August 2007, judges in two separate
cases ruled that because the fees are not applied to outof-state drivers, Virginia’s program violates the FourFall 2007 | Virginia Issues & Answers
www.via.vt.edu
are expected to change their behavior and drive more
safely. Yet unlike the motivation behind most fines, the
primary reason for Virginia’s recent adoption of abuser
fees is to increase transportation fund revenue, not to
cause behavioral changes. The new fees, which are in
addition to existing fines, are shown in Table 1.
9
teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
which guarantees Americans equal protection under the
law.6
Later that month, however, a Circuit Court judge
overruled one of the decisions, upholding the program
and declaring the fees constitutional. The judge said that
it is reasonable to expect Virginians to pay more for the
upkeep of their highways since they are the primary
users of the roads, while out-of-state drivers who are
just passing through Virginia use the roads much less
and therefore should pay less for that maintenance.7 It
is expected that this case will continue to work its way
through the Virginia courts and that the constitutionality of the program will ultimately be decided by the
state Supreme Court.
www.via.vt.edu
The electronic petition—a new era
in Virginia politics?
10
To date, two online petitions have attracted the attention of Virginia voters.8 Both petitions call for the repeal
of the abusive driver fees, and both contain pledges that
signers will abstain from voting for any political candidate who supports the revenue-generating program.
Approximately 180,000 signatures have been collected
for the petitions.9
Although that many signatures certainly implies a
significant number of angry Virginians, the impact on
Election Day may not be as significant as it initially may
seem. According to the Virginia State Board of Elections, roughly 4.5 million voters registered for the 2006
elections. Considering that the upcoming election is
occurring in a year with no federal or statewide offices
on the ballot, it is highly unlikely that more than half of
the registered voters will actually vote. Assuming that
everyone who signed the petition does, indeed, vote
against any candidate who supported the program,
that no one signed more than one petition, and that
only half of the registered population votes, the 180,000
signatures still only represent about 8 percent of the
total votes. While that may be enough to influence a few
races, it probably is not enough votes to affect a large
Virginia Issues & Answers | Fall 2007
portion of the seats in the House of Delegates. In 2005,
90 percent of the delegates won their races by a margin
much greater than 8 percent, and 51 percent of delegates
ran unopposed.10
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that everyone who
signed the petition will actually take the actions indicated. They may not vote at all, or they may live in a
district where there is only one candidate on the ballot. They may not know which of their representatives
voted for or against the measure, or their opinions may
not be as strong by the time Election Day arrives. Many
of these voters may be influenced more strongly by
other political factors. It can also be argued that many
signers are likely to be younger citizens, a group that
is Web savvy but typically has a low voter turnout.
So while the Web-based reaction of Virginia residents
cannot be ignored, the majority of legislators probably
do not need to worry about job security solely because
of the web petitions. Nonetheless, there may be many
angry voters who did not sign an online petition, which
should be taken into account by any politician hoping to
be elected.
Table 2
Selected types of Virginia traffic convictions, calendar year 2005
% of
Collection
Total
rate (%)
Driving with suspended/revoked license 47,493
21.8
13
Reckless driving
69,644
32.0
59
Driving under the influence (DUI)
28,827
13.2
44
Traffic misdemeanors
69,696
32.0
30
Traffic felonies
2,291
1.1
5
Total
217,951
100.0
38
Type of conviction
*
Number
Sources: HB 527, 2006 Fiscal Impact Statement, Feb. 24, 2006;
http://198.246.135.1/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+oth+HB527FH2122+PDF 9 (accessed Aug.
13, 2007); and fiscal impact worksheet provided by John R. Layman, Virginia Department of Taxation, Aug. 8, 2007.
*
The total number of convictions, including out-of-state drivers, was 232,187. Thus,
out-of-state drivers accounted for 6.1 percent of total convictions.
Note: The overall collection rate is a weighted average calculated by the authors.
How the revenue estimates were derived
In the absence of precise data, the official revenue
estimates were based on a number of assumptions.
Information on 2005 convictions for certain offenses constituted the core data for the estimates (Table 2).
A forecast of the new revenue from abusive driver
fees is little more than a shot in the dark because of the
many uncertainties associated with the program. First,
the forecasts being used have not been adjusted for
changes in law enforcement, court, and driver behavior
because of the abuser fees. It is conceivable that law enforcement officers will be more likely to reduce charges
when the consequences for violators are so severe and
that judges will be more apt to lessen charges given
their knowledge of the penalties. Second, offenders are
more likely to have legal representation, given the severity of outcomes should they be convicted. Third, it is
also possible that the well-publicized fees will promote
safer driving by all Virginians, which is consistent with
the traditional purpose of fines. Fourth, the forecasts
assume that ability to collect fines and fees for common traffic offenses will remain unchanged from 2005,
even though the combination of fines and abusive fees
will be much more costly for affected drivers. Fifth, the
forecasts rely on New Jersey’s experience of a 20 percent
uncollectible rate. Since there are material differences
in that state’s abusive driver program and the newly
adopted Virginia program, there is no certainty that this
is the appropriate rate to use. Sixth, keep in mind that
if the new fees really do precipitate change and cause
drivers to slow down or sober up and to follow the law,
then the fees would succeed in making the roads a safer
place—but they would also fail to raise the projected
revenue, creating a veritable Catch-22.
Fall 2007 | Virginia Issues & Answers
www.via.vt.edu
The number of convictions for each offense was multiplied by the new fee structure and the resulting estimates were then adjusted for reductions due to expected
increased participation in the Department of Motor
Vehicles’ (DMV) driver improvement program. Offenders who complete the program earn safe driving points
that may be sufficient to remove them from abuser fees.
Based on existing fines, 10 percent of offenders have
chosen to enroll in the driver improvement programs.
The revenue estimates assume that the incentive for
participation will increase dramatically because of the
added fees. Fifty percent of offenders with up to 12
points are expected to participate, with the participation
rate rising to 60 percent for those with 13 points, 66 percent for those with 14 points, 70 percent for those with
15 points, and 84 percent for those with more than 15
points. The participation rates were based on educated
guesses by the authors of the fiscal impact statement.
Revenue from the drivers who qualified for abusive
driver fees after adjustment for participation in the
driver improvement program was then reduced by 20
percent to allow for uncollectibles. Finally, totals were
reduced by 18 percent to allow for collection costs as
the DMV is going to rely on private collection services.
During the phase-in period, revenue is forecasted at
$19.7 million in FY 2008 and $53.2 million in FY 2009.
When the program is fully implemented in FY 2010, it
is expected to provide net revenue of $65.4 million that
year and for the next three years.11
11
Use of fines/fees to raise revenue: Experiences in
other states
Several other states have imposed abusive driver fees
to penalize drunk and reckless drivers on their roads
(Table 3). Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Texas
have programs to directly penalize those drivers who
accumulate many points, get caught driving under the
influence, or are arrested for driving without a license.
These programs have been met with varying amounts of
success.
Table 3
Abusive driver fees in other states
Michigan:
$100 a year while the license has 7 points (plus $25 for each point over 7)
$1,000 x 2 years for DUI
$200 x 2 years for having expired insurance
$150 x 2 years for having an expired license
New Jersey:
a conviction brings a second round of fees, which many
motorists still cannot afford to pay.13 There is also a bill
in the Michigan Senate that, if passed, would bring an
end to the program.14
In Texas, the legislature released a report in January
2007 that stated that its program was failing because
of the inability of many offenders to pay the fees. The
report recommends that lawmakers make significant
changes to the program, including amending it to make
certain surcharge payments realistically possible for
low-income drivers.15
While these programs are undoubtedly seen as
sources of state revenue, they have also been proposed
as a means of making the roads safer. In a state such as
New Jersey, where a comparable program has been in
place for more than 20 years, there is little evidence that
the fines have had any direct impact on road safety.16
$100 x 3 years for 6 points (plus $25 for each point over 6)
$1,000 x 3 for DUI
$250 x 3 years for having expired insurance
New York:
$100 x 3 years for 6 points (plus $75 for each point over 6)
$250 x 3 tears for DUI
Texas:
$100 x 3 years for 6 points (plus $25 for each point over 6)
$1,000 x 3 years for DUI
$2,500 x 3 years for two DUI’s
$250 x 3 years for having expired insurance
$100 x 3 years for having an expired license
www.via.vt.edu
“Driver Responsibility Programs Mean Steady Revenue for States,” TheNewspaper.Com,
Apr. 28, 2005; www.thenewspaper.com/news/03/362.asp (accessed Aug. 13, 2007).
12
In 2004, Michigan enacted driver responsibility fees,
which have since generated $397 million in expected
revenue. However, less than $170 million of that amount
has actually been collected. In Texas, the state has billed
drivers for $850 million but has only managed to collect
$275 million, less than one-third of the billed amount.12
Michigan judges are calling for a repeal of the fees because they are seeing a dramatic increase in the number
of drivers cited for driving with a suspended license.
For drivers whose licenses were suspended for failing to
pay a fee associated with a previous driving infraction,
Virginia Issues & Answers | Fall 2007
How do Virginia’s fines compare with those in
nearby states and the District of Columbia?
Table 4 shows DUI fines in Virginia, the District of
Columbia, Maryland, and North Carolina (Virginia’s
abusive driver fees are not included.) Comparing DUI
fines across states is appropriate because the criteria for
the offense are fairly uniform. In Virginia, the minimum
fine for a first-time DUI offender is $250. North Carolina
has a minimum fine of $100, and the District of Columbia mandates a $300 fine.17 Based on this information,
Virginia fines for a DUI conviction are not out of line
with those of its neighbors.
Table 4
DUI fines in Virginia and surrounding areas*
State
1st Offense
2nd Offense
3rd Offense
Virginia
At least $250
At least $500
At least $1,000
D.C.
$300-$1,000
$1,000-$5,000
$2,000-$10,000
Maryland
Up to $1,000
Up to $2,000
Up to $2,000
North Carolina
$100-$2,000
$1,000-$2,000
$2,000
Source: “DUI & DWI.” DMV.Org, The Unofficial Guide to the DMV.; www.dmv.org/automotive-law/dui.php (accessed Aug. 13, 2007).
*
It is important to note that these fines are the minimum amount mandated by law
and that judges may increase the amount at their discretion. The amounts noted
might also increase if there were a child under a specified age in the vehicle or if the
driver were involved in a collision, especially if the collision causes injury or the death
of another driver.
Potential changes in driver behavior
An important question to consider is whether or not
the abusive driver fees will have a significant impact on
driver behavior. The abuser fees for reckless driving apply when a driver is caught driving more than 20 miles
per hour over the posted speed limit. For drivers who
usually exceed speed limits by 20 miles per hour, are the
fees really going to make them slow down substantially
or will they simply slow down to 17 or 18 miles per
hour over? Additionally, a DUI was already one of the
most expensive driving violations. Will increasing the
cost of such an infraction from $10,000 to $13,000 have a
significant effect on drunk driving?
Although unintentional, another ramification is that
the publicity that these fees have generated may have
more of an impact on driver behavior than the fees
themselves. While a DUI was a significantly expensive
conviction before the fees, most drivers failed to recognize the additional costs beyond the $250 fine. While
some drivers remembered to account for the court fees,
the cost of bail, towing, license reinstatement, and other
charges, these expenses were often unknown to the
general public. So although a DUI was extremely costly
before, Virginia drivers may have been unaware of the
actual financial burden that such a conviction could impose. The media coverage following the passage of the
transportation act has placed a spotlight on the cost of
poor driving. Adding a few thousand dollars to the cost
of a ticket may not be a substantial marginal increase,
but for drivers previously unaware of the additional expenses, a $3,000 ticket seems to be an enormous increase
in cost.
Additionally, the fines may increase the number of
illegal drivers since those who don’t—or can’t—pay the
fines continue to drive nonetheless. According to the
New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, at any given
Fall 2007 | Virginia Issues & Answers
www.via.vt.edu
The imposition of abuser fees on top of the existing
fines takes Virginia to a new level of punishment—the
fees are imposed on top of already-hefty fines. In the
commonwealth, a first-time drunk driver faces a mandatory minimum fine of $250.18 Add in the costs of bail,
towing, legal fees, license reinstatement fees, court costs,
alcohol education class tuition, and increased insurance
premiums, and a DUI arrest and conviction can cost
thousands of dollars even before the abuser fees are levied. An MSN Money article estimates that the total cost
of a DUI averages around $10,000 in most states.19
13
www.via.vt.edu
14
time, more than 200,000 drivers have their licenses
suspended and more than 23,000 drivers owe $10,000 or
more in surcharges.20
The same pattern is evident in Texas. In two of its
major cities, El Paso and Austin, the number of arrest
warrants that have been issued is equal to roughly
eleven percent of the city populations.21 While some of
the warrants are related to moving violations, the vast
majority are related to paperwork from licensing problems or expired insurance. 22 Not only does this lead
to a number of unlicensed motorists, it creates a huge
burden for the state agencies required to process this
paperwork. The courts, the clerks’ offices, and the motor vehicle departments are all affected by higher costs
under this type of program.
The problem stems from the fact that for many lowincome drivers, the fees and associated costs create a
budget dilemma. When faced with the choice between
paying household expenses and paying the bad driver
fees, many of these drivers have chosen the former.
When a driver fails to pay fees, the issuing state suspends or revokes the driver’s license. But for drivers
who rely on their driving privileges to get to and from
work, not driving may not be perceived as an option.
These drivers get caught in a terrible situation because if
they cannot drive, they cannot work, and if they cannot
work, they cannot make any money to pay bills, including the fees. If caught while driving on a suspended or
revoked license, these drivers are convicted again, with
another round of high fees that they still cannot afford
to pay. This, in turn, also leads to a higher number of illegal motorists, who may go to extreme lengths to avoid
being caught, such as fleeing from a law enforcement
officer.
Studies have shown that the driver fees are excessively hard on low-income drivers. New Jersey issues about
200,000 license suspensions each year that result from a
failure to pay surcharges. In a state-commissioned study
performed last year, New Jersey found that 40 percent of
those suspended licenses are for people who live in lowincome areas. Yet only 16 percent of the total New Jersey
population lives in those areas. These results support
Virginia Issues & Answers | Fall 2007
the claim that such programs are disproportionately
tough on low-income families.23
Finally, another potential negative change in driver
behavior may stem from one of Virginia’s longstanding
laws. In the commonwealth, it is illegal to use a radar
detector. The increased penalty for excessive speeding,
however, may result in greater illegal use of radar
detectors.
Sources of revenue to replace the $65 million
if the fees are repealed
If the abusive driver fee legislation is repealed, then
policymakers must either reduce spending commensurately or provide for replacement revenue. Assuming
they opt for replacement revenue, the most rational
approach would be a tax tied to road use. In addition
to raising revenue for transportation, such a tax would
have the advantages of simultaneously charging the
beneficiaries of roads and discouraging driving by imposing higher operating costs.
The gas tax
Increasing the current 17.5 cents per gallon gas tax
would raise about $50 million in revenue per additional
penny.24 Virginia has not increased its gasoline tax since
1986. Since then, the retail price of gasoline has increased three-fold while the ratio of the tax to the sales
price of gasoline has plummeted due to the fact that
the tax is levied per gallon, irrespective of the purchase
price. Figure 2, which is based on the 17.5 cent rate
divided by the national average pump price, including
taxes, illustrates the decline. In 1986, the tax was 18 percent of the gasoline price. By 2007, the ratio had fallen to
6 percent.
Virginia’s tax per gallon is well below the national
median of 21 cents, and in a ranking from highest to
lowest tax state, the commonwealth places forty-second.
Moreover, Virginia’s tax rate is below rates in all adjoining states, which range from 31.5 cents in West Virginia
to 18.5 cents in Kentucky. Rates in the other nearby areas
are 30 cents in North Carolina, 23.5 cents in Maryland,
and 20 cents in the District of Columbia.25
Figure 2
17.5 cent Virginia Motor Fuels Tax per gallon as a percentage
of the average cost of gasoline, June 1986 to June 2007
Fund. A long-term option would be to amend the state
constitution so that all traffic fines were not earmarked
for the Literary Fund. Then, abusive driver fees could be
converted to fines that would apply to both resident and
out-of-state drivers, and all or part of the proceeds could
be used for the Transportation Fund.
Lessons to be learned
Source: U.S. consumer price index data on U.S. city average of the price of gasoline, all
types, per gallon; http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv (accessed Aug. 9, 2007).
Sales tax on motor fuels
Another type of user tax would be a sales tax on motor fuels. Currently, motor fuels are exempted from the
4 percent state sales and use tax. Imposing the tax on
motor fuels sales net of federal, state, and local per gallon taxes would raise a considerable amount of money.
Assuming no dramatic change in average fuel efficiency,
the annual amount would grow with increases in vehicle
miles and the cost of gasoline. An estimate made for the
2007 session when the average price of gasoline was
much lower than it is now showed a potential revenue
yield of $334.9 million.26
Titling tax
Another transportation tax that would provide a significant amount of revenue would be a one percentage
point increase in the current 3 percent titling tax on new
and used vehicles. That change would raise about
$200 million beginning in the first full year of implementation.27 The tax would be the same, no matter how
much or how little a car was driven, so as a user fee, it
would not be as attractive as a tax tied to fuel consumption—a rough proxy for mileage covered on state roads.
Other possible sources
If abuser fees are not replaced with tax revenue, then
the state must resort to even higher registration fees or
transfer more money from the already strained General
• First, the majority of the public should consider
a new tax or fee to be fair. Of course, there are no
objective fairness standards that can be readily
consulted, but common sense dictates that a fine or
license fee used as a penalty should apply to all violators, not just drivers who hold Virginia licenses.
If it is impractical to impose penalty fees on nonresidents, then penalty fees should not be used.
• Second, the use of the Web to raise public awareness about public policy issues and to organize petitions is likely to grow in importance.
• Third, public policy that attempts to merge the
goals of revenue generation and deterrence of bad
driving via fines and fees represents a contradiction. Fines clearly have a role to play in improving
driving. Virginia is probably overdue for an objective appraisal of how its traffic fines are working
and how they might be improved. But the goal of
improving driving should not be merged with the
goal of raising revenue. The revenue should be a
byproduct, not the central goal of the fees and fines.
In theory, there is no reason why fines and penalty
fees should not be considered an important revenue
source. But in practice, they are not an efficient
or effective method of raising money because of
behavioral changes that reduce collections and raise
other costs.
• Fourth, fiscal impact statements should play a
major role when important new sources of revenue are considered. Special care should be taken
Fall 2007 | Virginia Issues & Answers
www.via.vt.edu
With the hindsight of recent history in mind, the
abusive driver fee controversy contains many lessons for
public policy:
15
www.via.vt.edu
16
to ensure that these statements are as accurate as
possible, and when projecting revenue amounts
from entirely new sources, analysts should err on
the conservative side. Unfortunately, although the
detailed fiscal impact analysis for HB 3202 was
shared by the administration and the House and
Senate money committees, it was provided to the
public with neither detail on how the estimates
were made nor an update of the analysis to reflect
last-minute changes.
• Fifth, the press and public policy observers, including the authors, should pay more attention to fiscal
impact analyses to judge their quality and implications.
• Sixth, if the abusive driver fees are abandoned in
the 2008 session of the General Assembly, it will be
necessary to find a replacement source of revenue
unless transportation spending is reduced or more
money is transferred from the General Fund. The
best source of replacement revenue would be a
higher tax on gasoline. Such a device would serve
as a crude user fee since the amount of tax paid
would correlate with miles traveled. Any increase
in the gasoline tax would be far less than the gyrations in pump price to which consumers have become accustomed, and it would promote the use of
more fuel-efficient vehicles while reducing congestion and improving the environment.
• Seventh, if abusive driver fees are retained but
changed materially in the 2008 session as recommended by legislative leaders, already shaky
revenue estimates will become even more difficult
to meet.
• Eighth, abuser fees should ideally apply to all
drivers regardless of state of residence. However,
it is impractical to collect abuser fees from nonVirginians. This limitation does not apply to fines
and fuel taxes, which are equally applied and allow
Virginia to “export” part of the cost of improving
its highway system.
• And ninth, policy makers should take full advantage of our federal system with its “laboratory of
Virginia Issues & Answers | Fall 2007
states.” Without much effort, it is possible to collect
a great deal of information from the Internet about
the experience of other states in using new policy
tools. Apparently, Virginia’s abuser fees were not
subjected to that kind of scrutiny.
Endnotes
1
Hugh Lessig, “Lawsuit Seeks to Kill State’s Roads Bill,” Dailypress.com.
Aug. 7, 2007; www.dailypress.com/news/dp-99281sy0aug07,02718695.story (accessed Aug. 16, 2007).
2
An Arlington County circuit court judge has affirmed the authority’s
taxing power. Patrick M. McSweeney, a Richmond lawyer and former state
Republican chairman representing the authority’s opponents plans to appeal to the state’s Supreme Court. Associated Press, “Court Affirms NVTA’s
taxing power”; www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN/
MGArticle/WPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173352546884&path=
(accessed 09/06/07).
3
David D. Friedman, “Law and Economics,” The Concise Encyclopedia of
Economics; www.econlib.org/library/Enc/LawandEconomics.html (accessed Aug.
9, 2007).
4
Virginia Constitution, Article 8, Section 8.
5
Virginia Office of the Comptroller, “A Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2006,” Richmond, Va., December 2006,
p. 141; www.doa.virginia.gov/Financial_Reporting/CAFR/2006/2006_CAFR.cfm
(accessed Aug. 16, 2007).
6
Jonathan Mummolo, “2nd Drivers Fee Ruling May Incite More Suits,”
The Washington Post, Aug. 5, 2007; www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn /content/
article/2007/08/04/AR2007080401336.html, (accessed Aug. 13, 2007).
7
Tim Craig, “Va. Bad Driver Fees are Upheld. Texas Report Shows Prob-
lems There, Too,” The Washington Post, Aug. 14, 2007; www.washingtonpost.
com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300619_pf.html (accessed
Aug. 16, 2007).
8
The petition with the majority of signatures was started by a computer
programmer from Alexandria named Bryan Ault. He began by circulating
the petition to friends, family, and coworkers, but it soon drew a wider
audience. The other petition was started by a Northern Virginia psychic,
Rev. Sherry Sherry. Ault’s site can be found at www.petitiononline.com/
va3202. This site had 175,969 signatures as of Sept. 7, 2007. Sherry’s site can
be found at www.ipetitions.com/petition/VAtrafficfees/index.html. This site had
4,136 signatures as of Sept. 7, 2007.
9
As of Sept. 7, 2007.
10
“House of Delegates Results” chart, State Board of Elections, Com-
monwealth of Virginia, Aug. 13, 2007; www2.sbe.virginia.gov/web_docs/
Election/results/2005/nov2005/html/h_1.htm.
11
HB3202 Fiscal Impact Worksheet provided by John R. Layman, Vir-
ginia Department of Taxation, Aug. 8, 2007.
12
“Michigan, Texas Abuser Fees Face Challenge,” TheNewspaper.Com,
27
Neal Menkes, Senate Finance Committee staff, e-mail dated Aug. 10,
2007.
28
Tim Craig, “Prompt Change Urged in Va. Fees,” The Washington Post,
Aug. 23, 2007; www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyncontent/article2007/08/23/
AR2007082301238_pf.html. (accessed Sept. 7, 2007).
Aug. 1, 2007; www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1890.asp (accessed Aug. 19,
2007).
13
Craig, “Va. Bad Driver Fees are Upheld. Texas Report Shows Problems
There, Too.”
14
Sen. John Gleason, Michigan State Senate, Senate Bill No. 638, July
17, 2007; www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/Senate/
htm/2007-SIB-0638.htm (accessed Aug. 16, 2007).
15
Craig, “Va. Bad Driver Fees are Upheld. Texas Report Shows Problems
There, Too.”
16
Tim Craig, “Va. Enacted Bad Driver Fees Despite Red Flags,” The
Washington Post, July 24, 2007; www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301631.html, (accessed Aug. 13, 2007).
17
“DUI & DWI”; www.dmv.org/automotive-law/dui.php (accessed Aug. 13,
2007)
18
“Virginia DUI & DWI Laws & Enforcement,” www.dmv.org/va-virginia/
automotive-law/dui.php (accessed Aug. 13, 2007).
19
Christopher Solomon, “DUI: the $10,000 Ride Home,” MSN
Money; http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/
DUIThe$10000RideHome.aspx?page=all (accessed Aug. 13, 2007).
20
Sen. James E. King, Jr., Florida State Senate, Committee on Transporta-
tion, Driver Responsibility Program, November 2003; www.flsenate.gov/data/
Publications/2004/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2004-162tr.pdf (accessed
Aug. 13, 2007).
21
Eleven percent of the total population of each city. If we only count the
adult population (age 18 and older), the number of arrest warrants is equal
to approximately 15 percent of the adult population in each city.
22
“Michigan, Texas Abuser Fees Face Challenge,” TheNewspaper.Com.
23
Craig, “Va. Enacted Bad Driver Fees Despite Red Flags.”
24
Based on FY 2007 forecast of motor fuel tax revenue contained in the
Virginia Secretary of Finance’s economic outlook and revenue forecast presentation to the Joint Money Committees, Dec. 15, 2006, p. 24; www.finance.
virginia.gov/KeyDocuments/RevenueReports/FY2006-2007/2007ReportsList.cfm.
25
Tax Foundation, December 2006 data for the 50 states and the District
of Columbia; www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html (accessed Aug. 10,
26
www.via.vt.edu
2007).
Neal Menkes, member of the Virginia Senate Finance Committee staff,
spreadsheet of SB1379 (substitute), received Aug. 10, 2007.
Fall 2007 | Virginia Issues & Answers
17