The bill, which got
voted out of the House yesterday, would require that any unclassified employee
of the state within thirty days of assuming employment making at least $100,000
annually to show proof of having a Louisiana driver’s license and registration
of any vehicles in his name be done so in Louisiana. This also applies if a
salary increase brings that person above this level. Failure to provide such
proof to the employing agency brings about termination.
Louisiana law already requires that state residents who own and/or
operate motor vehicles comply with these license and titling requirements, so
the bill instantly is redundant. However, it adds the proof standard – presently,
the only means of enforcement comes from law enforcement officers incident to
an arrest, investigation, or traffic stop, where it would have to be proven
somebody without a Louisiana license and/or state titling had resided in the
state longer than 30 days before any enforcement could occur (or potentially as
many as 51 days) – and makes state agencies into enforcement bureaus, on top of
their genuine functions. Further, it does so only selectively – only unclassified
employees and those making six figures.
The issue appeared to have arisen last year when a governor’s office
staffer drove around the Capitol for seemingly more than a month in a car with
out-of-state plates, and had been employed in that office for more than a year.
She claimed she still considered herself a resident of her home state of New
York, the car’s titled location, even though she previously had worked for over
a year in Washington, DC. Edwards argues that lack of changed titling showed
insufficient commitment to the state.
Whether this kind of law would hold up in court in a constitutionality
challenge is another matter. The state well could claim legitimately that as a
condition of state employment it is in the interest of the state to have
employees declare themselves residents. But whether it could claim that
unclassified employees, of whom states are given less leeway jurisprudentially
in restricting their behaviors, and only those who make a certain salary should
be treated differently by the law may not have any substantial state purpose.
In other words, such a law may be constitutional only if all unclassified
employees must undergo this extra hurdle as a condition of employment, or it
may not be at all because they are unclassified and the Constitution does not
specify proof of residency as a requirement to hold a state job.
In all likelihood, the reason she avoided titling in state was the ridiculously
confiscatory fees paid when registering a car from out of state. That
requires paying sales tax on the fair market value of the vehicle (for fewer
than three axles). While Louisiana has reciprocal state sales tax agreements
with states that have sales taxes in most instances, which would waive the
state portion of the cost, for a few it’s lower and there are those without
sales taxes that would have to pay. Then in addition to this local sales taxes
from the place of residence would apply. This could create a titling fee of
four figures or more.
It’s just a stupid way to try to raise revenue, and leads to avoidance
when motivated and possible (hint: try driving around university faculty
parking lots, as few faculty members when hired come from in state, and count
the number of out-of-state plates where there should be practically none). And
here’s how the bill could make matters worse, beyond its increasing
administrative costs by turning agencies into enforcers. Let’s say a university
hires a top scholar on leave from his out-of-state institution on a fellowship
for a year, who would make over $100,000 for that kind of gig. You know, maybe
if he likes it and we like him, a deal could be worked to have him stay. Yes,
they are unclassified employees, as are around 34,000 in the state (although probably
only a thousand make $100,000 or better annually), including besides university
faculty, administrators, and staff also medical, military, and local government
staffers. And let’s say this guy has a nice, year-old car bought in another
state now worth $30,000. That means you just slapped a $1,000+ cost on this guy
to come here for a year because of this law. That’s really going to help in the
recruiting process.
(And another thing: hard as it is to imagine, but especially if they
come from back east, some people don’t own cars or even have driver’s licenses.
So now a condition for employment in Louisiana for certain jobs is you have to
have a driver’s license, even if you’ve never owned or operated a motor vehicle
a lick in your life? For a job that does not require vehicle operation? Is that
really constitutional?)
The real problem is the asinine titling costs. If the state were serious
in wanting vehicles of actual residents titled in state, it would apply the
sales tax provision only to vehicles bought, say, in the past year, in order to
avoid create an incentive for people going out of state specifically to buy a car.
Why does somebody have to pay sales tax in one location, not even knowing he’ll
end up some day in Louisiana, and then pay it again coming here? It’s not “insufficient
commitment” to the state, it’s not wanting to pay an absurd fee.
4 comments:
Funny, not a peep from the professor about the "insipid" Republican bill reviving nullification over gun laws. I hope you don't teach your poor students that nullification is still a vaild doctrine. But I guess it must be one to you as a GOP lackey.
So, what the professor seems to be saying (not that it's easy to extricate a point from this jumble of transpositions) is that members of the Bobby Jindal administration should not be held to the requirements of Louisiana law, because following the law is hard.
Not only should state employees not be expected to follow the law, but your very expectation that they ought to follow the law is symptomatic of a populist cancer in Louisiana's political culture.
Remember, folks: the professor threw his full-throated (if incoherent) support behind the Jindal administration's scheme to raise the overall tax burden on businesses and individuals along with the basic cost of living for most of the private citizens of this state, but he wants to exempt taxpayer-paid employees of said administration from the basic compliance costs of existing law.
Parents, think long and hard before you let your kid attend LSU-Shreveport.
Why, I would ask, after five and one-half years of this administration, do these "ridiculously confiscatory fees" still exist in our laws?
Why hasn't the Governor and his people removed them? instead of just ignoring them?squi
Little Jeffie,
Quit or you will go blind and hair will grow on your hands.
Post a Comment