Del. Albo Explains HB 161

After writing my article about HB 161, I contacted its sponsor, Delegate Dave Albo, for comment. He replied with the following explanation of his bill:

When the General Assembly repealed the Abuser Fees, it lowered the punishments on Felonies and DWI. This bill increases the penalties on all Felony Driving Behavior and DWI. The punishment is fines and the money goes to the Literary Fund where all criminal fines go.

Here is the list:

FELONIES: Mandatory Minimum of $2,500 - $3,000
1. Voluntary manslaughter;
2. Involuntary manslaughter;
3. Vehicular manslaughter in violation of § 18.2-36.1;
4. DUI maiming in violation of § 18.2-51.4;
5. Third offense of driving while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-270;
6. Eluding police in violation of subsection B of § 46.2-817;
7. Reckless driving (racing and causing death or injury) in violation of § 46.2-865.1 or reckless driving (causing death or injury while unlicensed) in violation of subsection B of 46.2-868;
8. Driving after having been declared a habitual offender in violation of subdivision B 2 of § 46.2-357;
9. Driving dangerously or intoxicated when such person's license has been suspended for multiple convictions of driving while intoxicated in violation of subdivision D 2 of § 46.2-391;
10. Hit and run with injury or with more than $1,000 in property damage in violation of § 46.2-894;
11. Operation of a motor vehicle with a smoke screen device in violation of § 46.2-1086; or
MISDEMEANORS OTHER THAN RECKLESS SPEEDING
Mandatory Minimum of $2,250
1. Driving while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-266,
2. Driving a commercial vehicle while intoxicated in violation of § 46.2-341.24.

Thank you to Delegate Albo for his prompt response to our inquiry. This should further our readers' understanding of this bill and hopefully avert the kind of uproar that followed implementation of the original abuser fees last year.
Read More. . . .

General Assembly Analysis: Abuser Fees Back and Bigger Than Ever

The Virginian Federalist began our "General Assembly Analysis" series for this reason: "Last year bloggers and the MSM failed the people of Virginia when the General Assembly passed the accursed abuser fees without so much as a peep from the people they represent. It is the job of all forms of media to inform the public of what the government is doing." Well, the abuser fees are back, and we are here to give you the story this time.

Delegate Dave Albo, who sponsored the notorious abuser fees last year, now ups the ante with HB 161. This bill will "repeal" the abuser fees, which are civil penalties paid only by Virginia residents, and replace them with similarly high fines, which will have to be paid by all violators.

Despite all the ire directed by Virginians at Richmond following the implementation of the abuser fees last year, and after all of the rhetoric by politicians in opposition to the fees, the only bill on the issue of abuser fees still having a chance to pass this session would actually expand the scope of the fines. HB 161 has already passed the House of Delegates and is now in the Senate.

Actually, based on my reading of this bill, it looks like a good proposal. I have no problem with hefty fines being levied against drunk drivers, people who commit manslaughter, or reckless drivers with revoked or suspended licenses.

I also think it is very important that the law apply equally to all drivers on Virginia roads. I have seen too many vehicles with out-of-state plates racing past me on I-95 at speeds well over 85 mph. They need to face the same penalties that Virginians would face for such actions. This bill is intended to accomplish that.

What are your thoughts to these changes to the abuser fees? Do these changes satisfy your complaints with the original law? Do more changes need to be made? Should the General Assembly do away with these fines entirely?

Update: Del. Dave Albo responded to The Virginian Federalist's inquiry about this bill. Read his response here.

Read More. . . .

Bolling Live Blog Transcript

Lumen said...

Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling, welcome to The Virginian Federalist. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to join us to discuss some important issues. Also, thanks to all our readers who have suggested questions for this interview.

In the interest of getting the most out of our time together, here is the first question, suggested by one of our readers. VAPatriot (not associated w/ Governor Gilmore’s blog) said, “L.G. Bolling, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions today. I was wondering how your 100 Ideas Initiative is going? How is it progressing through the Commonwealth? What major issues are arising from it that would be of interest to all Virginians? And I was also wondering what exactly they might produce in terms of 2008 legislation?”

Lieutenant Governor Bolling said...

As you may know, we kicked this initiative off on April 10, 2007. The purpose of the initiative is to help get our party back to being the party of issues and ideas. My belief is that Republicans win campaigns when we focus on the issues Virginia’s families care about and relate them to our conservative principles and values.

We designed this to be a two year initiative, so I’m not sure it will produce a lot by way of legislation in 2008, although some of the ideas we have been talking about have already been embraced by candidates across the state.

The first year of the initiative was designed to be the solicitation phase, during which we set a goal of conducting 100 Town Hall Idearaisers in various parts of Virginia. These Idearaisers give us a chance to interact with business leaders, political leaders, government leaders, civic leaders and citizens on the issues of interest to them.

So far we have done about 50 Idearaisers and we have been very pleased with the results. We have had good attendance everywhere we have gone, the press coverage has been excellent, and we have received lots of useful input on issues ranging from education to the environment and everything in between.

So far we have posted 92 possible ideas on our web site – www.100IdeasVA.com. You can view them there and comment on them if you wish. More ideas will be posted in the coming weeks as a result of additional Idearaisers that we have planned between now and the end of the year.

The second phase of the initiative will come in 2008, when we work with the Lieutenant Governor’s Advisory Committee and the Steering Committee to evaluate the ideas that have been submitted and prioritize them. Once that is done we will put forth the final package of issues that we want to focus on as we approach 2009 and beyond.

Publius said...

As you know, endorsing a candidate for public office in a primary can be a very risky move for any politician. You were one of the first elected officials to endorse a candidate for president here in Virginia. What is it about Governor Mitt Romney that has convinced you that he is the right person to lead our country in the future? (Question submitted in advance)

Lieutenant Governor Bolling said...

This is a critical time in the history of our nation and the world. As we look ahead to 2008, it is very important for us to elect a President who has the background, knowledge and experience to lead our country; and the right stand on the important issues facing us at home and abroad.

Over the past several months I looked closely at each of our Party’s major candidates for President – Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain and former Senator Thompson. While I think they are all very fine men, and they each have their relative strengths and weaknesses, I came away from those conversations with the firm belief that Mitt Romney is the best candidate to carry our party’s banner into the 2008 campaigns, and the right person to lead our country into the future.

As far as his background is concerned, Governor Romney is what I call a “turn around guy.” He has a record of going into situations where companies, enterprises and governments were not performing well and turning them around. He did that in private business, he did that at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and he did that in Massachusetts. I think Washington, DC is a mess, and we need a President from outside the beltway – someone who can go in there and turn the place around. I think Mitt Romney can do that.

I also believe that Romney is offering the right vision for the future of our country. He has a solid platform that focuses on the things American’s care most about – a stronger military, a stronger economy and stronger families. In each of these areas he has put forth specific proposals that are consistent with my conservative values, and he articulates his vision very effectively. You can learn more about his at his web site – www.mittromney.com.

I think this is the type of background, knowledge and experience we need in our next President; and the type of leadership our country needs in the years to come.

Finally, and on a more pragmatic political note, I think Mitt Romney can beat Hillary Clinton in 2008. Mitt has proven his ability to reach across the isle and attract independent voters and clear thinking Democrats. If we are going to win in 2008 I think we need a nominee who can do that, and I believe that Mitt can do it better than any of our other candidates.

It is always easier to set on the sidelines and let these campaigns unfold, but that’s not what leadership is about and that’s not my style. I think Mitt Romney is our best candidate for President, and I hope folks will give him a fair look. If they do, I think they will like what they see and he will generate the same groundswell of support here in Virginia that he has generated in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Michigan and numerous other early primary states.

Cominius said...

How do you plan to address the reluctance of many Evangelicals in Virginia to support Mitt Romney because of his religion?

Lieutenant Governor Bolling said...

Frankly, we’ve not encountered that. For example, I consider myself to be an Evangelical Christian, and I’m supporting Mitt; and we have not seen any widespread opposition to his candidacy because of his faith. I’m not saying that it won’t be a factor for some people, but I don’t think it will be a factor for most people. In fact, just the opposite has been true. I think most people want a President who is a person of faith, but they don’t necessarily expect to agree with every aspect of a candidates particular religious beliefs. I can tell you from the time I have spent with him that Governor Romney’s faith is a very important part of his life, and I think that’s what people want in their President.

Publius said...

An August 26th Richmond Times Dispatch editorial accused you of making a "U-turn" on the abuser fee issue, based on statements you made supporting "a plan to increase fines and penalties for traffic-related offenses by at least $50 million a year." Recently, there have been many blogs and articles claiming that you oppose the abuser fees. What is your current position on the issue of the abuser fees?

Lieutenant Governor Bolling said...

Well, first of all, I didn’t read the Times Dispatch editorial that way. I think they were simply pointing out that some people who had initially supported the abusive driver fee concept had now come out in opposition to the package that was ultimately signed by the Governor. They used me as an example, probably because I am the only statewide Republican who has decided that the current law is unworkable.

I initially supported the abusive driver fee concept because I felt it was a legitimate way to raise money for transportation construction without general tax increases. However, with hindsight the bill signed by the Governor was deficient in two respects. First, it encompassed a number of lesser driving related offenses that should not have been included, and second, it excluded out of state drivers. This is what most people have objected to.

My position is this. If there is any way that we can repeal the abusive driver fee legislation in 2008 I think that is what we should do. It has become so unpopular that it is, in my opinion, unworkable. However, at the very least we need to correct the deficiencies discussed above, which will at least return the concept to its original form and make it more fair in its application.

Lumen said...

Federal government spending has spiraled out of control with Republicans in power. Even here in Virginia, the Republican controlled General Assembly has approved record spending in recent years. Mark Foley and Larry Craig have shown that Republicans don't always practice what they preach when they claim to be the party of family values. As a leader in the Republican Party of Virginia, what do Republicans need to do to reclaim their values both fiscally and morally? (Question submitted in advance)

Lieutenant Governor Bolling said...

Well first of all, let me state that I agree totally with the premise of your question. I believe that one of the reasons our party lost its majorities in Washington last year, and one of the reasons we are struggling in Virginia, is that we have sent mixed messages to the voters.

For example, we talk about being fiscally conservative, but we have done little to limit spending at the federal or state level, and several of our members voted for tax increases in 2004 that were clearly not needed.

In addition, at the federal level we refuse to address important issues like illegal immigration, etc., and our members are even divided on standing with the President in his efforts to win the war against terror.

If we want to regain our majorities on the federal level, and if we want to retain our majorities at the state level, we have to quit sending these types of mixed messages. We have to show voters that we know what we believe in and that we are willing to stand up and fight for the things we believe in.

Over the past several months my message to Virginia Republicans has been clear and consistent, and I think the same message applies on the national level. To rebuild our party and get back to winning elections I think we have to do three things:

First, we have to recommit ourselves to our conservative principles. We have to get back to being the party of limited government and lower taxes. The party of individual rights and individual responsibilities. The party who understands that values like faith and family still matter to most voters, etc. These conservative principles made us the majority party in America and in Virginia, and we need to remain true to those conservative principles.

Second, we have to get back to being the party of issues and ideas. That’s what my 100 Ideas For The Future of Virginia initiative is all about. It’s my effort to get our party back to talking about important issues like education, public safety, health care, transportation, etc. We can’t allow the Democrats to define us by what we are against. We have to be defined by what we are for, and we are developing a platform that focuses on the issues Virginia’s families’ care about. If you haven’t checked it out, visit our 100 Ideas web site at www.100IdeasVA.com and look at the things we are talking about. I think you will be impressed.

Third, we have to offer a positive vision for the future. We can’t win campaigns by trying to tear the other side down. We will win campaigns by talking about our record and our vision for the future. That’s the kind of optimistic and positive leadership the people of Virginia are looking for, and we have to provide them with that type of leadership.

This is a challenging time for our party in large part because we have sent mixed messages to the voters, but we can change that. I still believe that the vast majority of the people of Virginia share our conservative values. We just have to show them that we still believe in those values as well, and talk about how those values relate to the issues they care about.

Publius said...

There has been much speculation lately as to whether you are planning to run for the United States Senate or for Governor of Virginia. Would you like to end the speculation and be an innovative leader by using the new media to announce your candidacy for an office, here on The Virginian Federalist, or would you like to dodge the question in typical politician fashion?

Lieutenant Governor Bolling said...

I don’t mean to “dodge the question”, but I have been working very hard to get everyone to keep their focus on 2007, because that is the campaign that matters most right now. I am currently doing everything I can to make certain that we retain our Republican majorities in the Senate and the House of Delegates this November, and I don’t believe that we should let anything distract our attention from that goal.

Once the 2007 elections are over we will turn our attention to 2008, when we will work to elect a conservative Republican to replace John Warner in the United States Senate and make sure that Virginia votes for a Republican presidential candidate. I can tell you this, despite significant encouragement to do so, I do not currently have any plans to run for the United States Senate in 2008.

As far as 2009 is concerned, let’s just wait and see what the political landscape looks like. I am trying very hard to be a good Lieutenant Governor and a good leader for our party. If I do that well it may create other opportunities for me down the road, but I really think we should wait to talk about 2009 until the 2008 elections are over.

Cominius said...

Illegal immigration has become one of the top two political issues in Virginia and across the nation. Illegal immigration is not mentioned in your 100 Ideas for Virginia principles, nor are there any ideas there to reduce the impact of illegal aliens on crime in Virginia or reserving Virginia taxpayer funded benefits for Virginia citizens. What should the government (state and federal) do to solve this issue in a realistic manner?

Lieutenant Governor Bolling said...

Actually, illegal immigration is prominently discussed on the 100 Ideas website. It is included under the section entitled Virginia Values.

I think illegal immigration is one of the most important issues facing our country today, and I find that people are terribly frustrated by the inability or unwillingness of Congress to address this issue. As a result, they are looking to state and local governments to do the feds job for them.

On the federal level, I think the first thing we need to do is secure our borders, by whatever means is necessary. Once we have done that, we can turn our attention to other things, like making certain that illegals are not receiving the benefits of citizenship and that we do more to hold employers accountable for knowingly hiring illegal workers. Along the way, we have to be more aggressive in our efforts to find people who are in this country illegally and remove them.

On the state level, we have proposed a number of initiatives, including:

1. Giving state and local law enforcement officials the authority to arrest and detain illegals when they find them, rather than release them, which is the current practice.

2. Making certain that we are not giving illegals in Virginia the benefits of citizenship, including admission and instate tuition at our colleges and universities.

3. Strengthening our own laws to hold employers accountable for knowingly hiring illegal workers.

Here’s the bottom line as I see it. We are for legal immigration, but we are opposed to illegal immigration. We want everyone to enjoy the American dream, but the American dream has to be earned, it cannot be stolen. If you want to come to our country abide by the law. I have little sympathy for those who refuse to do so.

Publius said...

Here is another question from one of our readers. Jane Dudley said, “Lt. Gov. Bolling, I appreciated the letter you emailed out this week with your thoughts on September 11, especially your call to remember and support our military. As we go into an election season and soon into a legislative session, are there any initiatives you have in mind that will support Virginia's military and military families?”

Lieutenant Governor Bolling said...

Thanks for your comments about my recent op/ed – Thoughts on September 11th. If you did not read it and would like to do so it is available on our web site at www.billbolling.com. I am so appreciative of the sacrifice that the men and women of the United States military make. Their work in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places throughout the world is critical to winning the war on terror, and it frustrates me that so many Americans don’t seem to understand the importance of this battle to the future of our country and the world.

As far as the 2008 legislative session is concerned, we will be meeting with representatives of various military organizations, as we do each year, to talk about their legislative priorities. Those meetings have not yet occurred, so I don’t know what their specific priorities for 2008 are at this time. However, I assure you that we will continue to support initiatives to reward active duty military personnel and veterans. I feel a special kinship and duty to them for the service they provide to our country each and every day.

Lumen said...

How do you think blogs and other "new media" influence politics? How have you had to change your communications strategy in the course of your political career in response to new media? (Question submitted in advance)

Lieutenant Governor Bolling said...

Blogs are obviously a new and interesting phenomena, and they have definitely changed the way we communicate with the public and the media. They are another medium that we can use in trying to inform people about what is going on in Richmond and get them involved in government, and that’s a good thing.

We have tried to reach out to the “blogosphere” in a number of ways, including live blogs like this one, podcasts, attending and speaking at blog conferences, and including bloggers on our press list. I am also very proud of the fact that I was the first statewide official to sponsor a Bloggers Day at the State Capital in 2007, and we plan to repeat this event in 2008.

Blogs have come a long way since their inception a few short years ago, and I think their influence will continue to grow. In truth, their potential is still untapped. We look forward to continue working with our friends in the “blogosphere” in the years to come.

Well, it looks like our time is about up, so let me thank The Virginian Federalist for having me on tonight, and each of you for joining us. If our office can ever be of service to you, please let us know. We look forward to working with you to Build A Better Virginia!

Publius said...

Thank you Lieutenant Governor Bolling for taking the time out of your busy schedule and even staying late to discuss these important issues here on The Virginian Federalist. We really appreciate the opportunity to have you on our blog. We hope that you will join us again in the future for another live blog.

Publius said...

This concludes tonight’s live blog interview with Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling. Thank you to LG Bolling, the TVF editorial board, and everyone that tuned in to tonight’s live blog.

Read More. . . .

Abusive Driver Fees: a snare for unwary citizens and lawmakers

Monday's Daily Press carried an Associated Press story reporting on traffic offenses by members of the legislature and executive that could have resulted in abusive driver fees now. The offenders included Governor Kaine, House speaker Howell, Majority Leader Griffith, and Republican Caucus chairman Kilgore.

The abusive driver fees of $750 to $3000 have been the subject of much controversy and citizen unrest since they went into effect on July 1.

One of the most common offenses which come with an abusive drive fee is reckless driving. Under the Code of Virginia there are many ways in which reckless driving is defined. One is speeding 20 or more miles over the posted speed limit. A second is going over 80 miles and hour regardless of the speed limit (that is 15 miles an hour over the 65 mile an hour limit). Both of these are found in 46.2-872.

Here are some other violations designated as reckless driving:

Driving with faulty brakes (46.2-853)
Passing at crest of grade or on curve (46.2-854)
Driving with driver's view obstructed (46.2-855)
Failing to give proper signals (46.2-860)
Driving too fast for highway and traffic conditions (46.2-861)
Exceeding speed limit (46.2-862)
Failure to yield right of way (46.2-863)

In addition to all of these the abusive driver fees also apply to any driving related misdemeanors defined in section 18.2 of the code. While driving related is undefined, here are some things which are defined in 18.2 which could be done while driving:

Littering (18.2-324)
Spitting (18.2-322)
Unauthorized use of a dairy milk case (18.2-102.2)
and not least Using a vehicle to promote prostitution (18.2-349)

The extensive range of items included in the abusive drivers fees covering so many of the everyday offenses one daily while driving suggest that a high percentage of our fellow drivers, including the legislators and the governor, not just those who most would consider abusive can be swept up this law as it now stands. While revision is possible repeal is preferable, and soon.
Read More. . . .

Democrats’ Strategy to Lose by 21 to 51 Percent

The title is no more outrageous than what the Democrats are apparently doing. According to the WaPo, Virginia Democrats are accusing Republicans of “exempting illegal immigrants from having to pay” the abuser fees.

This may be the worst political mistake that the party has made in a long time. It is sure to back fire. Why you ask, because the exact opposite is true.
I guess the Democratic leadership did not read my article “Illegal Immigrants not Subject to Abuser Fees” back on August 14th. If they had they would have realized that it was Governor Tim Kaine who excluded illegal aliens from having to pay the fees.

Don’t believe me? See for yourself, here, explaining how Kaine removed all but in-state drivers from the fees.

Due to Kaine’s amendment, illegal immigrants fell through the cracks, and the General Assembly had no choice but to pass the thing because instead of submitting individual amendments Kaine sent them one (1) substitute amendment with all of his changes.

Still don’t believe me? The WaPo article continues to say that Governor Kaine is distancing himself from the Democrats strategy. His spokesman said, “Trying to link the two issues is absolutely silly.”

Kaine knows that if the Democrats use this strategy it will come back to bite them, HARD! It was his actions that removed illegal aliens from the bill.
Back to my title, it’s not so absurd any more, is it? Read More. . . .

Henrico Circuit Court - Rational Tyranny?

There has been notice in the Virginia blogosphere that the Henrico Circuit Court upheld the constitutionality of the Abusive Driver civil remedial fees struck down by the Henrico District Court. Discussion of the arguments used by the Circuit Court have been absent. A review of the arguments leads me to believe that the Court followed a logical path destructive of the liberties of Virginians and tyrannical in approach.


While a fair number of blogs reported on District court challenges to the Abusive Drive Fees adopted as part of the Transportation Plan, commentary on the subsequent Henrico Circuit Court ruling that the application of the fees only to Virginia Residents was constitutional drew fewer comments. Below The Beltway reported on the AG offering to fast track the case to the Virginia Supreme Court. Virginia Virtucon revealed that House of Delegates Speaker Howell and Senate Majority Leader Stosch promised a legislative fix in January. Now at the Podium declared no surprise at the outcome of the hearing in Henrico Circuit Court as well as providing a link to the Court's opinion. I was unable, however, to find much said about the implications of the Henrico ruling for our personal liberty or about the tyranny arising from such judicial thinking. Here is my take.

The challenge was to the disparate application of the abusive user fees to Virginia residents only, on grounds this violated equal protection. The court noted that the constitutional challenges was stipulated to only whether the statute bears a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose. As a result of the stipulation no consideration was given to the issue that since laws abridging fundamental rights need to pass a strict scrutiny test, but challenges to abridgment of rights not fundamental needed only rational basis test, this law might be an abridgment of fundamental rights and need strict scrutiny.

Following the limitation of the case to the question of whether the classification system that establishes the inequality complained of (in this case being a Virginia resident and all others) bears a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose, the court set up to test this by requiring the challenging party to negate every conceivable basis which might support it. Further the rational basis to be attacked need not be actual or factual just theoretically possible. As there can be infinite plus one possible theoretical rationals concocted and projected onto the legislative act, it would be impossible for any challenging party to negate every one of them.

The impact of this rational is that the legislature can abridge any right not deemed to be fundamental for any purpose whatsoever, real or imagined, and the abridgment can stand so long as a some rational can be constructed to from thin air to apply to it. Where judges can give sanction to the abuse of citizen rights with no possible challenge available, tyranny is implicit.


Some additional side notes to the ruling are worthy of mention. The court noted that the defendant relied on a U.S. Supreme court case, Williams v. Vermont, which differently taxed vehicles of Vermont residents depending on acquisition or residency before or after purchase. One may well wonder if in fact there are out of state residents to treat differently. There is no definition in the Abusive Drive Fee statute defining who is a Virginia resident. It can be supposed conclusive that if the cited driver has a Virginia license then residency is predetermined, but new residents have 30 days to obtain Virginia licenses. They are residents none the less. Does the law pertain to them? Can we concoct a rational basis to assume that every operator on a Virginia road is a potential resident, not yet have evidenced in the negative by leaving?

It has been reported that out of state residents were exempted from the civil remedial fees due to difficulty in collecting them. Yet the law itself applies them to any "persons operating without a license," without limiting that to Virginia residents.

The Henrico decision curiously stated that the Non-Resident Violators Compact (VA Code 46.2-944 et seq) does not provide the authority to collect remedial fees (from out of state drivers). The court notes a subject out of state driver must appear for a hearing and pay any applicable fees and costs, but then goes on to exclude the civil remedial fees from those applicable fees and costs with no further evidence to support that exclusion, and in apparent contravention of the express language of the code which does not distinguish the civil remedial fees from other fees in the Code:

The civil remedial fees established by this section shall be in addition to any other fees, costs, or penalties imposed pursuant to the Code of Virginia.

The text of the related portion of the Code:

§46.2-206.1
A. The purpose of the civil remedial fees imposed in this section is to generate revenue from drivers whose proven dangerous driving behavior places significant financial burdens upon the Commonwealth. The civil remedial fees established by this section shall be in addition to any other fees, costs, or penalties imposed pursuant to the Code of Virginia.

B. The civil remedial fees established by this section shall be assessed on any resident of Virginia operating a motor vehicle on the highways of Virginia, including persons to whom Virginia driver's licenses, commercial driver's licenses, or learner's permits have been issued pursuant to this title; and persons operating motor vehicles without licenses or whose license has been revoked or suspended.