Good. Those mandatory fines are teh suck and enroaches on the judiciary's power to assign a sentence.

TFA: The state's legislative leaders quickly issued statements indicating surprise and underscoring their resolve not just to maintain the "abuser fees" but to expand them to generate additional revenue from out-of-state drivers. The move comes despite the plea of just under four percent of the state's active, registered voters who have signed a petition demanding the law's unconditional repeal

Farking asshats. I've never called my state reps, but it looks like now's the time. Being an election year in Virginia and all.

$3000 for not signalling a lane-change is absurd.

Okay, if you live in Virginia, here are the Yays and Nays for this bill. Both of my reps voted against it. Did yours?

House of Delegates
Senate

Go to Who's My Legislator? to find out who your reps are.

It's a shame this doesn't cause enough outrage in the public that we could rally together and recall the dolts that thought this was a good idea.

/stinking lawyers

My Representative and Senator both voted against this bill.

Just in case some of you Virginians missed this online petition:

Petition to 'Repeal the VA "Civil Remedial Fees" for traffic Offenses' (new window)

"...but to expand them to generate additional revenue from out-of-state drivers."

That pretty much says it all. Money grubbing assholes.

I think that's a fair ticket if you're driving 234 mph.

Taxcheat: Some fee supporters voted against 3202 for other reasons and they should not be let off the hook. Instead, you want to look at HB527, which was a straight-up vote on the fees -- only 18 delegates voted "no."

Hear here! Thank you.

I direct everyone's attention here. HB527

Luckily, I've been busy exercising my constitutional right to not live in or ever visit Virginia.

/What the hell is wrong with these people
//If this ever happens in CA, I think it'll be time for a new country

ruled that the civil remedial fees violated the equal protection clause by applying additional, mandatory fines of up to $3000 on Virginia drivers, but not out-of-state drivers who may have committed the same driving violation

In other words, he didn't throw out the law, he created an opening to make it even worse.

Alright, they'll have to raise revenue some other way to fix Virginia's bridges. Or watch another 35W take place near you.

please lord,

make the same thing happen in texas. please???

This guy looks like the lawyer who tried to keep evolution out of the class rooms back in da day...
/Read: Redneck y'all

I guess the Virginia legislature passes laws on the same premise as playing the lottery: You can't win if you don't play. You can't try to collect any fees if you don't pass the laws first!

This is what you get from a commonwealth founded by a corporation.

FuturePastNow: ruled that the civil remedial fees violated the equal protection clause by applying additional, mandatory fines of up to $3000 on Virginia drivers, but not out-of-state drivers who may have committed the same driving violation

In other words, he didn't throw out the law, he created an opening to make it even worse.


Negative. He struck down the law. It's just that simple. There's no "opening" created... The law is now null and void. If the lawmakers want to pass a law that's even worse they're going to have to write it, then get the votes and pass it, just like any new law.

Since this has gotten a lot of publicity - bad publicity - I seriously doubt that they'll be able to drum up the votes for an even stronger version on the 2nd try.

DrJesusPhD: $3000 for not signalling a lane-change is absurd.

shiat, if they did that here in Texas, they would have a balanced budget

/could pay for the iraq war the next day
//could solve world hunger the next week
///maybe even pay for all the slashies on fark

This ruling is only binding in the county (Henrico) where it was challenged. Now the fun really begins as traffic lawyers in every other county in the Commonhole file similar challenges, and they all end up getting appealed (first to the Circuit Court, then eventually to the Virginia Supreme Court.)

The problem with the Commonhole is that by law traffic FINES go directly to the "Education Fund", and FINES are the only way they can get out-of-state drivers. FEES can only be assessed within the state's borders, and since this brilliant scheme is administered by the Virginia DMV and designed to fund Transportation and not education, Non-Virginia drivers never have to interact with it or worry about it. (this includes both out-of-staters and the illegals we're overrun with).

/VA is teh suck.

Damn activist judges!

This Judges decision only affects one county if I read the article correctly

I rarely go over the speed limit
but now I will never visit or spend one dollar in Virginia
Yeah I know it seems to be limited to residents
But it's the thought that counts

Sheesh, it just ain't worth arguing about. There are too many people who think it's perfectly acceptable for government to demand your money from you, even when your actions resulted in nobody being hurt, threatened with intent, or no property being damaged.
Just smile, think to yourself "That's just the way it is", and fork over the dough. After all, there's no feeling like having to pay to lick the jackboots!

Ain't tyranny great?

"...a Henrico County General District Court judge today struck down as unconstitutional the Virginia's controversial speeding ticket tax that had been in effect since July 1. Judge Archer L. Yeatts, III ruled that the civil remedial fees violated the equal protection clause ...

What I (and many others) said weeks ago.

/if it is an asshat law now, it was an asshat law when you farks voted on it.

Gotta love the old rational basis test. The case could have gone either way.

Is this judge an elected official? If so, I smell a re-election!

Weaver95: I'd like to see them expand that law to out of state drivers.

the result would be that every state with a reciprocal agreement with VA regarding fines and suspensions would drop it

Weaver95: I'd like to see them expand that law to out of state drivers.

The (stated) reason they can't, is because ultimate enforcement is via suspension of your drivers license. Since they can't do that for out of state drivers...

Isn't $3000 about a years wages in the Ozarks?

Not $3000 cash, Corn liquor, civil war firearms, folk medecine...

He nailed it for equal protection reasons but what about voilations of the 8th Amendment?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I'd call taking on $3000 for a non-injury traffic voilation pretty damn excessive.

Unconstitutional or not, the way to avoid such fines, fees, whatever is simple. Don't break the law! How hard it that?

Reverend J: Damn activist judges!

clicks on thread, ctrl F "activist judges"

Well done, my good man, well done.

"The court rejects the speculations postulated by the commonwealth, and mindful of its obligation to do so, has exhausted its speculation quotient in trying to conceive of any others that would be a rational basis for the distinction between resident and non-resident 'dangerous drivers.'"

No one else thought it was amusing that the court had exhausted its "speculation quotient"?

Walker: Before you start celebrating read the fine print:

Today's court decision only applies to motorists stopped in Henrico County.

I live in Henrico county so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/no really
//this rules

No one else thought it was amusing that the court had exhausted its "speculation quotient"?

Yeah, it's hilarious.

???

The punishment HAS to fit the crime. That's why I'm against 3 strikes laws too. Tying the courts' hands is flat out unconstitutional. Mandatory anything goes against the rule of law. Same thing goes for zero tolerance in schools. It's draconian and a sign of weak and lazy thinking.

"Whether the courts find the law constitutional or not, as a policy matter I am committed to addressing the concerns Virginians have raised about this law, including its application to out-of-state drivers," said Governor Tim Kaine (D).

Bahahahahaha

Yeah partner, good luck getting that cash from me. I just won't come back to your shiat heel state.

Cloudchaser the rainbow wolf, thank you for being such a shining example of why we live in a state of tyranny.
Any other replies I might have had for you would have undoubtedly involved namecalling, which is probably against the law by now.

Jesus Christ...

The Virginia General Assembly was a big clusterfark when I interned there this year.

Every single person in that building, exempting one or two delegates, are grade "A" asses. They spend much of their time enjoying the perks of government, such as free invitations, gifts and such, and rarely, if ever, answer the letters from their constituents, opting to use mass form letters for nearly every occasion. The only time they ever listen is if you have money. No "Mr. Smith" types in there.

And Tim Kaine? He's such a dick that he makes Mark Warner look like the Fonz.

First of all, this whole transportation bill sucks donkey balls.

Second, vote everyone of those motherfarkers out for being so arrogant to try and pull this shiat.

I live in Finland, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

Old news, but still...

/that's it, check out the link

Weaver95: I'd like to see them expand that law to out of state drivers. Should be interesting to see how it stands up in Federal court. I'm pretty sure someone could make a case for such fees as intefering with interstate commerce.

Of course, they COULD just exempt trucking companies from traffic fines.....

I've never really understood why they didn't just raise the fines, instead of applying this idiotic "tax" onto the "fines" to begin with. It just seems like a screwy way to do business.

"Uh, yeah, that's a $70 ticket ... but there's a $300 "tax" on all speeding tickets." Dumb.

I don't think there would be any Constitutional issue with just raising the fines, as long as they applied to everyone on the road.

Where you would run into the Interstate Commerce clause would be if you tried to make the higher fines ONLY apply to out-of-state drivers. Every once in a while some idiot thinks that it would be a fine idea to put a special toll up and charge only out-of-state drivers (I'm looking at you, D.C.), and that's where you run into problems.

It's generally pretty Constitutional as long you're charging everyone the same thing. Hence, toll roads and high speeding tickets are OK. But selectively fining people is not.

etymxris: No one else thought it was amusing that the court had exhausted its "speculation quotient"?

I'm divided on it.