Led by Gov. Ned Lamont, Connecticut lawmakers followed Rhode Island’s truck-only tolling heist down the rabbit hole. With the Rhode Island Trucking Association, American Trucking Associations, and other stakeholders winning a federal lawsuit that shut down the Class 8 tolling stations because they were deemed ‘Unconstitutional’ and ‘Discriminatory’ at trial, Connecticut finds its trucker pick-pocketing scheme at risk.
“Gina Raimondo has told us they’re going to win that case. Look, the truckers will put up every roadblock they possibly can. But we have a plan where they’re going to pay a little bit more to keep up our roads and bridges. I think this is something we’re going to get done,” Gov. Lamont reportedly said as the truck-only tolling legislation was in play. “They know exactly what the rates would be on those trucks — big trucks and small trucks, in-state and out-of-state. We’re ready to go.”
At the time Gov. Lamont helped fast-track the legislation that is expected to take upwards of $90 million annually from the trucking industry, he and Gov. Raimondo believed they would prevail. Even University of Connecticut PhDs supported the notion targeting truckers was — if not ethical — at least legal.
“The argument is this discriminates against interstate commerce,” UConn Prof. Rick Pomp reportedly said at the time. “But when you look at hotel taxes, rent-a-car taxes, taxes on oil in Alaska, taxes by Delaware on corporations and taxes by Nevada on gambling, they are all imposed on what can be viewed as interstate commerce. This is the bedrock of the American tax system.”
But the markings of truck-only tolling appear inherently biased on its surface. After a contentious civil trial, U.S. District Judge William Smith slapped down the RI tolling system that was raking in upwards of $45 million annually. So convincing was the case brought trucking organizations and Cumberland Farms convenience stores, among others, the court gave Rhode Island just 48 hours to shut the system down. Rarely do judges take such proactive measures, given losing parties often appeal.
“Because RhodeWorks fails to fairly apportion its tolls among bridge users based on a fair approximation of their use of the bridges, was enacted with a discriminatory purpose, and is discriminatory in effect, the statute’s tolling regime is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution,” Smith wrote.
Connecticut lawmakers largely adopted the same reasoning Rhode Island employed. That would seem to make their scheme equally unconstitutional and discriminatory. Those were precisely the sentiments expressed by elected officials who opposed the measure, as well as Joe Sculley, president of the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut.
“This is a plan to demonize and target an important industry in order to divert, pun intended, attention away from constant misuse of the Special Transportation Fund,” Sculley reportedly said at the time, calling it “unconstitutional.”
The Rhode Island ruling and any subsequent decisions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit would not be binding on Connecticut due to different court jurisdictions. But judges in the Second Circuit that hold sway over Connecticut would likely consider the trucking industry win in deciding constitutionality. That bodes well for the men, women, and companies that keep the supply chains rolling.
Sources: courant.com, bostonglobe.com
Leave a Comment