Patrick McSweeny, a Richmond attorney and former chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, questions the constitutionality of The Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform Act of 2007 on at least three grounds:
- Granting regional transportation authorities the power to impose regional taxes violates the Constitution’s limitation of taxing powers to the General Assembly and local and regional governments.
- Authorization of $3 billion in state bonds violates the Constitutional requirement for voters to approve the issue of tax-supported bonds.
- Passage of an omnibus transportation and land-use bill violates the Constitution’s requirement that legislation be limited to a single object (an argument that Phil Rodokanakis has made on this blog).
Read McSweeny’s column in the Times-Dispatch here. I’m no constitutional scholar, so I can’t weigh the merits of McSweeney’s arguments, although I would say they seem to be at least superficially plausible. What are the arguments on the other side? Can readers weigh in?
Update: Here’s the bigger story, as reported by the Washington Post:
State and local lawmakers from Northern Virginia are challenging the legality of Virginia‘s recently inked transportation plan in a late effort to halt a deal that is expected to raise about $400 million a year for new projects in the region. Opponents of the plan argue that allowing the appointed members of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to decide on tax and fee increases violates the state’s constitution.