Word game results in veto of a good bill

Court fees collected in Missouri are used for a variety of purposes.

But Gov. Bob Holden has vetoed a bill that would have allowed counties to use money from a new fee to be used on crime-reduction programs. The governor said the bill is unconstitutional because revenue from court fines is supposed to spent on education.

The governor is correct when he quotes the Missouri Constitution. But he also is aware -- as are legislators, judges, lawyers, litigants and accused criminals -- that the state has a variety of court expenses that generate funds for many purposes other than education.

That's why the governor's veto of the crime-reduction fund bill came as a surprise and took on political overtones.

At the heart of the issue is a word game. Is a payment a "fine" or a "fee"?

The crime-reduction fund bill would have allowed counties to collect a "fee" of up to $250 from criminal defendants who receive suspended sentences or probation. The fact that the bill made the "fee" voluntary did not sway Holden.

Similar fees had been collected by some counties until 1998 when it was determined they didn't have the authority to establish crime-reduction funds. The funds were used primarily to purchase equipment for sheriff's departments. A 1999 bill was vetoed by Gov. Mel Carnahan because he believed the legislation would permit some defendants who could afford it to buy suspended sentences. Later attempts to get the bill through the legislature were thwarted by concerns the revenue would be used to create slush funds for sheriffs.

Those concerns were all addressed in this year's bill, and the question of constitutionality never came up until the governor vetoed the bill.

Perhaps that's because there are so many other laws on the books already that do pretty much the same thing. There are court fees, for example, that raise revenue for court automation, spinal-cord research and a retirement fund for prosecutors. None of those, obviously, have anything to do with funding the state's schools. And in most cases those "fees" are mandatory.

Holden's argument has some validity based on previous lawsuits challenging such fees. A quick review of several cases shows appellate courts have consistently ruled such "fines" to be unconstitutional.

This is more than a semantics contest, however. For many cash-strapped counties, the crime-reduction fund was, before 1998, a major source of funding for the many extras a sheriff's department might not otherwise be able to afford.

If the governor is really concerned about constitutional issues, he might want to review his approval last month of the bill to add a court "fee" for the prosecutors' retirement fund and his approval this month of the bill creating a court "fee" for legal aid for low-income Missourians.