Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Single Object Rule

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

I’m glad to be back blogging on BR! It’s a time consuming process, but I missed being away. Thank you Jim for inviting me to re-join the premier blog on VA politics.

A lot has been written about the GOP Transportation Compromise that squeaked through the State Senate on a 21 to 19 vote. Jim Bacon called it “Transportation Abomination.” I prefer referring to it as “Bill Howell’s Tax Increase,” but the discussion on taxes will have to come later.

In the meantime, I have yet to see any in-depth analysis of some of the provisions called for in this bill, particularly some legal issues that arise from this legislation and the manner in which it was packaged into one mammoth bill.

Article IV, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution addresses the “Form of Laws.” It states:

No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. Nor shall any law be revived or amended with reference to its title, but the act revived or the section amended shall be reenacted and published at length.

Speaker Bill Howell, the patron of HB3202, has tried to explain away this requirement by saying that its single object is “congestion mitigation.” But the Constitution requires that the one object behind the bill be expressed in its title.

The title of HB 3202 has nothing to do with congestion mitigation—it doesn’t even mention the word congestion. The bill’s title is: “Transportation funding; authority to certain localities to impose additional fees therefor [sic], report.”

So what is the single object that this bill embraces? There are so many parts to this bill one is hard pressed to summarize them all. It purports to do a little of everything, such as raising taxes, promoting an efficiency study, calling for economic development, increasing traffic fines, granting new taxing authorities to localities, and the list goes on…

I don’t mean to be presumptuous or give Gov. Kaine any ideas, but the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) is trying to make an issue if the Governor amends or vetoes the transportation compromise bill. Instead, all Gov. Kaine has to do, is return the bill back to the legislature since it fails to meet the single object rule as required by our Constitution. That will deflate the PRV’s bubble and will expose Bill Howell’s Tax Increase for what it really is—an abomination!

In any case, even if the governor does not read the BR blog, I’m certain that certain patriots are standing in the wings and plan to challenge the constitutionality of this bill in the courts. It is indeed mind-boggling, that Virginia’s law and order party consistently manages to come up with bills that are designed to evade or outright ignore basic legal and constitutional requirements.

More on additional legal issues with this bill in my next post.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

11 responses to “The Single Object Rule”

  1. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    I’m glad to read that someone else thinks as i do that HB 3202 violates the single object rule in many places.

    Two that jump out at me are:

    (1) The beach replenishment taxes

    (2) The use of tax funds to sponsor and promote recreational and cultural events.

    Neither one of these two provisions appear to me to have anything to do with Transportation – let alone mitigating traffic congestion.

  2. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Phil: In Tidewater do you read it to mean that if 7 cities/counties vote yes then all 13 or so cities/counties are forced into the Regional Government (a political subdivision of the Commonwealth – I found that)?

  3. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Jim: That’s what I was told, although admittedly I haven’t studied the section of the bill authorizing the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority very closely.

    And talking about this section, it’s found in Chapter 10.2 of the Transportation Compromise bill (AKA Bill Howell’s Tax Increase). More interestingly, this section even sports its own short title: “This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority Act.”

    That’s the purpose behind the single object rule. The enabling legislation creating the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority should have been introduced as its own bill under the single object rule. The fact that this section has its own short title, clearly shows that Howell’s bill fails the single object rule test as required by the Virginia Constitution.

    But what are a few constitutional technicalities for Bill Howell and his merry gang of “fee” increasers? The driving factor was to pass a bill that could be used to “corner” Gov. Kaine. How it was done or whether it was constitutional, was irrelevant.

    A lot of the blame for this goes to AG Bob McDonnell. He was intimately involved in the preparation and packaging of this bill. For an elected official that has taken an oath to uphold the VA constitution, McDonnell is surely displaying some disturbing character flaws. This is all going to come back and haunt him when he runs for Governor in 2009 as he has repeatedly told us that he is running for that office.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Probably not a bad thing to disclose that a Mr. Rodokanakis is listed as the current President of the Virginia Club for Growth PAC and that this PAC actively lobby’s for and against specific legislation in the GA.

    http://pac.virginiaclubforgrowth.org/news/020506PRcommentary.htm

    If I have confused two different people I apologize.

    If not, I would respectfully ask that if the current transportation proposal is so unacceptable.. to the point of questioning it’s constitutionality.. (which I would agree with but point out that there are probably a few other bills in this group also.. so why select out just this one?)

    Anyhow.. would you consider laying down what you and/or the Club for Growth advocates for Virginia Transportation instead of the current unacceptable approach?

    thank you.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: NVTA and TW/HR’s own TA.

    Even though the 2002 referenda went down in NoVa… the legislation that created the NVTA survived.

    I don’t know how the NVTA is governed or makes decisions.

    Is the proposed TA in TW/HR modelled after the NVTA?

    Since the Fed MPOs operate off of constrained lists of projects it would appear that the primary role of the NVTA and the proposed TW/HR version would be to get together as a region with respect to what they would recommend that would “fit” into the MPO’s list

    EXCEPT for one major difference

    The Wash Metro MPO – the TPB consists of 3 separate state level entities, Va, Md and DC and so it might make since for Va to have an NVTA to prioritize NoVa projects as a recommendation vice having DC and MD deliberate NoVa’s own priorities.. (I know I’m stretching this….).

    But in TW/HR.. there is no need for a NVTA equivalent because the MPO does not include no-Va jurisdictions.

    Can someone tell me what the justifcation for the HR/TW authority IS … ???

    and did all of the TW/HR elected delegates and Senators in the GA vote FOR creation of that TA?

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There were no votes in Hampton Roads on both sides of the aisle.

    The idea that six or seven of the localities could vote yes on the taxes, and they would be imposed where local governing bodies voted no, will be front and center in legal challenges and I predict will be rejected by every court. That is taxation without representation of the worst order.

    Tell me again why we don’t want the Dems back in power? At least they call a tax a tax and vote for them openly.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m wondering if the NVTA works this way…

    FYI – VRE operates only with willing particpants and this year will convert to a proporational representation voting process.

    I presume that other transportation authorities could consist of ONLY those that chose to participate and then not-member localities would represent themselve at the MPO with the Authority “Block” operating with directed votes from the authority votes.

    But if no HR/TW GA reps voted FOR the Regional Authority .. how did it survive to become part of the final bill?

    Did RoVA vote FOR it even though they knew that HR/TW did not want it?

  8. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Larry:

    The fact that I’m the current president of the VA Club for Growth (VCG) should be well known and it’s clearly disclosed in my long-time association with Bacon’s Rebellion (see my “wonk profile.”) The goal of the VCG is also stated on that page, which I also summarize here: “an organization dedicated to fighting for lower taxes, reduced regulatory burdens, and other policies intended to expand overall economic growth for Virginia.”

    You said that we actively lobby the General Assembly. That’s not accurate. We’re a Political Action Committee (PAC) and as such we express our views in the political process. Granted the goal is to persuade the legislators to our point of view, but we’re not registered lobbyists nor are we required to register as such given the fact that we’re organized and registered as a PAC.

    As to our proposed transportation solution, we have repeatedly urged the members of the General Assembly to consider funding a transportation plan that does not include a tax increase, but instead allocates more money for roads from the General Fund and allows for building of smart roads through public/private partnerships that are funded through tolls and congestion pricing.

    You may recall that several years ago a company named Fluor had proposed to enter into a private/public partnership with the State for building HOT lanes along the Washington Beltway. As covered in length by Jim Bacon in his Op-Eds, that’s the type of solution that can get us moving again. Giving more money to VDOT means that at best no new roads will be built for ten years or longer.

    It’s an absolute shame that the state professes to support public/private partnerships, but when it comes to moving forward on such a proposal they fail to take action. There is no reason why the Fluor proposal hasn’t moved and remains all but forgotten.

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Hey Phil –

    No problem. I looked on your profile on BR and did not see your affiliation with the Club for Growth.. just that you were involved in consulting.

    And I stand corrected on the distinction between a PAC and registered lobbying but VPAP does show that your PAC cotributes to campaigns – about 46K worth total.

    Also, would respectfully suggest that your Profile on BG (at the top) might contain your VaCG affiliation.

    I’m not having a problem with this – only suggesting that disclosure is a good proactive immunization to future suggestions of hidden agendas.

    In terms of your transportation positions – shockingly.. I think I pretty much agree!

    ..but I thought the HOT lanes were going forward…. no ?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401101.html

    Actually the TOLLs and Congestion Pricing have been discussed at length here in BR and there is concern that the proceeds from from the tolls might be co-opted for purposes other than better transportation solutions.

    Cited is what happened to the Dulles Greenway and the question is asked openly that if VDOT ends up with Toll proceeds.. why would we expect the disposition of those funds to be any different than what they current do with revenues from taxes?

  10. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Larry:

    All my columns in BR sport the heading “The Club for Growth” right at the top before my name. And the bylines next to each column mention my consulting work and my present position with the Club for Growth.

    I agree with you that disclosure is good and I have no problems with what you’re saying.

    As to the HOT lanes moving forward, there is no reason why they haven’t broken ground by now. The Fluor proposal goes back about four years now.

    This is the problem with VDOT. They can’t speed up the process on anything and it takes them years before they can get anything done. There is no reason why a public/private partnership could be given the go ahead quicker and then let the private sector take it from there and move forward.

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “This is the problem with VDOT. They can’t speed up the process on anything and it takes them years before they can get anything done. There is no reason why a public/private partnership could be given the go ahead quicker and then let the private sector take it from there and move forward.”

    CLASSIC VDOT!

    I have related the story that locally VDOT cited the lack of availability of orange barrels as the reason why a road improvement was several months behind schedule.

    I could not agree with you more.

    Unfortunately… VDOT is in charge of the PPTA process….itself… which is bad news.

Leave a Reply

Read More