Senate Tentatively Votes To End Bad-Driving Fees
Va. Lawmakers Still Fighting Over Penalties Already Assessed

By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 26, 2008

RICHMOND, Jan. 25 -- The Virginia Senate took a major step Friday toward eliminating the unpopular abusive-driving fees but couldn't agree on what to do about the tens of thousands of motorists who might have already started paying them.

In a two-hour debate that was marred by partisan bickering, the Senate tentatively approved a bill to repeal the costly fees. The Senate bill includes an emergency clause so Virginia courts could stop imposing the fees as soon as Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) signs the legislation.

"We need to provide the immediate relief that citizens deserve," Sen. Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) said.

The bill, one of more than a half-

dozen introduced in the Senate to scrap the fees, will receive a final vote as early as Monday. It will then have to be reconciled with a similar House bill that also seeks to revoke the fees, although not until July 1.

Before the preliminary vote Friday, Senate Republicans and Democrats engaged in a heated battle over who deserved more credit for the fees' apparent demise, underscoring how quickly the political landscape has changed. The Senate approved the fees a year ago as part of a major transportation spending bill.

The fees, which range from $750 to $3,050 and are payable over three years, are assessed on felony and misdemeanor driving offenses, including driving under the influence and reckless driving.

In August, a month after the fees took effect, Kaine, House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) and Walter A. Stosch (R-Henrico), who was then the Senate majority leader, stood together at a news conference to defend the fees after tens of thousands of voters petitioned against them.

There were more than 100,000 arrests or citations issued for offenses that could trigger a fee between July 1 and Oct. 31, according to the Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability.

Since the fall election, when Democrats picked up four House and four Senate seats, there have been growing calls from Kaine and members of both parties to end the fees. On Tuesday, the House voted 97 to 2 to abolish the fees. Even the original sponsor of the idea, Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax), supported the repeal.

Senate Democrats, who have made the elimination of the fees a top priority, tried to use their new majority to muscle a repeal bill sponsored by Sen. R. Edward Houck (D-Spotsylvania) through the chamber, casting aside similar proposals introduced by Republicans.

On Friday, the 19 Republicans in the Senate fought back.

Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach) introduced an amendment that would have established a way for people to get out of paying the fees that the courts have already assessed.

Under Stolle's proposal, a person convicted of a crime that triggers a fee would have been able to go back to court to ask a judge to revoke it so the violator wouldn't have to make the second and third year of the payments. The court could also issue refunds for first-year payments. But the judge could grant the request only if the defendant was found guilty of an offense that didn't "endanger life, limb or property."

"It would be terrible policy for us to issue a refund for someone who was driving drunk and took the life of another," Stolle said.

He said that "if this amendment is rejected, the individuals, regardless of how minor the offense was, will continue to pay the fee until the end of the three years."

Democrats objected to Stolle's amendment, saying they preferred to sort out the issue of refunds later. Democrats also argued that it would be too burdensome to make someone go to court to try to get out of paying the fees.

"This is just another lawyers relief act," Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath) said.

Stolle's amendment was defeated 21 to 17 on a party-line vote. But several Democrats said they planned to work with Kaine to come up with another system for ending collection of the fees and would look at refunds as well.

"We are aware of this issue, and it is definitely something we will sit down with the attorney general's office and talk that through about how best to address it," said Delacey Skinner, Kaine's communications director.

Stolle said that, because his amendment was defeated, the governor and General Assembly will not have the legal standing to order the courts to stop collection of the fees.

Senate Republicans had better luck in getting an emergency clause attached to Houck's bill so judges can stop assessing new abusive-driving fees as soon as Kaine signs the bill.

Last week, Houck and the Democrats resisted calls by Republicans to attach an emergency provision to the bill. If it became an emergency bill, it would have to be approved by a four-fifths vote instead of a simple majority.

Houck said he initially worried the bill might not be able to meet such a high threshold in the House and Senate.

But Houck and Senate Democrats sided with Senate Republicans Friday to include an emergency provision in the bill.

"This was a mistake we made in 2007, and we need to get it off the books as soon as possible," Houck said.