List of Members/Candidates opposed to the fees

Some of the candidates (both current members of the GA and challengers) have responded to my email and below is a list of those who are opposed to the fees. Please keep this in mind when you head to the polls on November 6.

The list is organized by district- you can find out what district you live in on Virginia’s Who is My Legislator? page.

This is not a comprehensive list because I was not able to find valid emails for all the candidates, and I’m sure some are too busy to respond in the last week of their campaigns. If you are a candidate or aware of a candidate who is opposed to the fees and not listed here, please contact me.

The files are in PDF format, so they require the free Acrobat Reader to view. Please check back because I will continue to update these files as more candidates commit to repealing the fees.

List of House of Delegates candidates opposed to the fees: houselist.pdf Update 11/4/07- add Adam Ebbin  (D- 49th district) to the list

List of State Senate candidates opposed to the fees: senatelist.pdf
Update 11/4/07- add Bob Wilkerson (D- 15th district) to the list.

Petition Sent to candidates and members of the General Assembly

I sent the petition to the members of the General Assembly, as well as all of the candidates running in the upcoming elections (at least all the ones I could find valid email addresses for- if there are any candidates or legislators out there who did not receive the email please contact me).

I will track their responses on this blog so citizens of Virginia can use the information when going to the polls on November 6.

Below is the text of the email I sent:

My name is Bryan Ault and I am contacting you on behalf of 177,000+ citizens of Virginia who have signed the online petition against the “Civil Remedial Fees” (also called the “abusive driver fees”) included in House Bill 3202.

I started this petition because I truly believe these fees are horrible policy for the people of Virginia. Clearly, thousands of my fellow citizens agree. Problems with these fees include:

- Penalties are far too high for the degree of the offense, which violates the explicit prohibition of “excessive fines” in Article 1 Section 9 of Virginia’s Constitution.
- The penalties are also too high for many Virginians to afford and amount to a regressive tax on lower income residents.
- Demerit points remain on a driver’s license for up to 11 years, meaning that as few as 2 offenses in an 11 year period can result in additional fines.
- The fees are affecting first-time offenders for menial offenses and not truly targeting “abusers.”
- The fees are applied through traffic enforcement, which is done inconsistently and arbitrarily.
- The fees are for REVENUE, not traffic safety, and unwisely combine revenue legislation with traffic safety legislation.
- Judges are given no discretion to reduce or eliminate the fees
- Similar legislation in other states have had negative unintended consequences.

There is a fundamental problem with the number and type of offenses that are considered “reckless driving” in Virginia, and this legislation exasperates the problem. While these fees may intimidate and scare drivers into slowing down, “slower” does not mean “safer,” and, in fact, data shows that accidents and fatalities decrease when speed limits are raised. This legislation will have a minimal if any effect on safety because it was designed to generate revenue and addresses many driving behaviors that are not truly “reckless” rather than truly dangerous behaviors.

Class Action Lawsuit agains the “Abuser Fees”

Lichtenstein, Fishwick & Johnson, PLC, a Charlottesville law firm, has filed suit in court. Unfortunately, a judge has denied the preliminary injunction to suspend the fees, however, this does not prevent the lawsuit from continuing.

If you have received a traffic ticket in Virginia that is subject to the new fees and would like to be included in the suit, contact Devon Munro.

Also, do not forget to vote on November 6, and vote against those responsible for the “abuser fees.”

Driver fees “may still be issue” in upcoming election

Contradictory court decisions and promises by Republican leaders and Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to fix the fees next year appear to have diminished the anger.Republican leaders even have begun touting the fees, which can provide a penalty of up to $3,000, as a safety feature that has cut down on bad driving.

Full article in Richmond Times-Dispatch

First, let’s get to the polls and make sure the people responsible for this awful legislation pay the price.

Second, do NOT by the Republicans’ and the Governor’s promise to fix the legislation. They made a huge mistake the first time and we cannot trust them to get it right. It is obvious that they fail to see the glaring issues with this legislation. The petition demands REPEAL, not modifications, adjustments, etc.

Third, this is revenue legislation, NOT safety legislation. Legislators only started to tout the “safety” aspect AFTER the public backlash began. There is nothing in this legislation regarding safety. For years, the government and the safety advocates have been trying to tell us that slower is automatically safer, and that is simply not true. Data has shown that when states raise speed limits, accidents and fatalities from accidents DECREASE. Our speed limits are set to low. For those of you who think driving 80 or going 20 mph over the speed limit is “reckless” just because Richmond passed a law saying so, try thinking for yourselves and looking at the available data. This legislation is designed to increase revenue and in the process, it may make people slow down, but slower is NOT the same as safer.

Even if we ignore the speed limit issue, there is no justification for a $1250 fine for a first-time speeding offense. There is no justification for points remaining on a driver’s license for 11 years. There is no justification for additional fees for drivers who receive as few as two tickets in an 11 year period. There is no justification for the huge fines attached to some of the other minor offenses in this legislation.

The so-called “abuser fees” target everyone in Virginia, not just “abusers”. It is bad policy and we need to hold the responsible parties accountable on November 6.

Voting options for the November 6th elections

Some of the supporters for the Civil Remedial Fees (“abuser fees”) in the General Assembly, such as Dave Albo, do not have challengers in the upcoming election on November 6th.

Of course, the lack of a challenger does not force a voter to vote for a candidate. You are free to vote for every other race on the ballot and simply not cast a vote in the race for Delegate or State Senator. In addition, you can write in the full name of any person who is not fully on the ballot. WINvote electronic voting machines are used in many parts of Virginia, and this link provides instructions for conducting a write-in vote on WINvote machines. If your county does not use WINvote, you can find instructions for write-in votes on the county’s website.

You can write in your own name, the name of another person you feel is capable of representing your district in the General Assembly, or a gag name as a protest vote (my personal favorite is Mayor “Diamond Joe” Quimby of Simpsons fame).

It is highly unlikely that a candidate will be defeated via write-in votes, however, if an incumbent receives significantly less votes than in previous elections, it will certainly make a political statement and possibly encourage a challenger for the next election.

Please use November 6 as an opportunity to let Virginia’s lawmakers know how the citizens of the Commonwealth feel about the mistake they made by passing the “Civil Remedial fees”. You can find out where to vote in Virginia at the Virginia State Board of Elections website.

Correct Michael Thompson regarding the “Civil Remedial Fees”

In this Bacon’s Rebellion article, Michael W. Thompson claims that the “abuser fees” should be called “safe street fees”. His article comes to some faulty conclusions and you can contact him at info@thomasjeffersoninst.org to correct his writing.

In fairness to Mr. Thompson, he has opposed portions of the abuser fees in past articles. However, I still feel this article mischaracterizes “positive” effects from the fees and fails to address the fundamental issue of VA labeling too many offenses as “reckless driving.”

Here is my response to him:

Mr. Thompson,

My name is Bryan Ault and I’m the one who started the petition against the so-called “abuser fees”.

Your article in Bacon’s Rebellion is full of mis-information. Yes, you are correct that you do need to do something very serious to get the $3000 fee (however, I don’t believe it is as serious as causing a death). However, what you fail to mention is that 1 speeding ticket for going 81 in a 65 now costs $1250, and two such tickets in an 11-year period will result in additional fees on top of the cost of the tickets.

Going 16 mph over twice in 11 years is hardly “reckless”. You neglect to mention all the charges for much lesser offenses that are included, such as driving with insufficient treads on the tires or driving with an obstructive view (an extremely subjective charge, by the way).