Below The Beltway

When the Virginia General Assembly voted in abuser fees last year, it ignored the experience of the two states that had adopted similar programs, with disasterous results:

RICHMOND, July 23 — Virginia lawmakers imposed steep new fees on bad drivers this year despite warning signs from states with similar programs that they cause a surge in unlicensed motorists and have crippling effects on the poor.

The licenses of tens of thousands of motorists in New Jersey and Michigan have been suspended because they cannot afford the fees, and little evidence has emerged that such fines improve highway safety, according to state officials and studies.

Numerous lawmakers, judges and social activists in both states have sought to either repeal the fees or make major changes in how they are collected. But once the programs are implemented, they are difficult to get rid of, because state lawmakers are unwilling to give up the revenue they raise, judges and lawmakers said.

“I think it is a very destructive piece of legislation that is designed primarily for revenue purposes and is disguised as a highway safety measure,” said William C. Buhl, a Circuit Court judge in Van Buren County, Mich. “In my opinion, it increases the dangers on the highways because it creates an enormous, growing pool of unlicensed motorists.”

This isn’t an entirely unpredictable turn of events when you think about. People need to work, and most of them need to drive to get to work. If they cannot afford to pay the abuser fees and lose their license as a result, it’s not entirely surprising that they’d continue to drive only this time without being licensed.

Of course, Virginia legislators claim that that didn’t have any information about the negative impact of abuser fees when they passed the transportation bill earlier this year:

At a news conference last week defending the fees, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said they had no information to suggest that there were problems in states that use such fees.

Except for the fact that:

When Buhl heard that Virginia lawmakers were considering the fees last year, he e-mailed all 140 legislators, explaining why he thought the program was a failure in Michigan, which began assessing the fees in 2003. No one responded, Buhl said.

Apparently Howell and Kaine don’t check their email.

And, from New Jersey, we have a preview of the future:

Officials in Michigan and New Jersey say Virginians should brace for problems, including clogged courts and the prospect of thousands of residents having to choose between keeping their licenses and paying their bills.

“Had any lawmaker in Virginia called me, I would have said, ‘Don’t do it,’ ” said Tom Pearce (R-Kent), a state representative in Michigan. “An awful lot of my colleagues would not have voted on these had they understood the unintended consequences.”

In 1983, New Jersey became the first state to assess the fees, which range from $300 to $4,500 over three years and pay for insurance for those unable to obtain coverage. The $100 million raised annually goes into the state’s general fund.

New Jersey issues about 800,000 license suspension notices a year, a quarter of which result when people are unable to pay the surcharges, according to the New Jersey Treasury Department. A 2001 study by the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice found that the suspensions were creating a permanent underclass.

Under pressure to repeal the fees, the state commissioned a study last year that found that although only 16 percent of residents live in low-income areas, those neighborhoods house nearly 40 percent of the people whose licenses have been suspended for failure to pay fees and fines.

The commission recommended increasing the amount of time to pay, a proposal under consideration by the legislature. But the commission stopped short of saying that the fees should be scrapped.

“The commission set up was not comfortable recommending the program be dissolved, largely because it’s an integral part of New Jersey’s finance system,” said Jon Carnegie, who was a principal investigator for the commission.

I can see the same arguments being raised in Richmond circa 2012.