Durkan does not yet have a proposal for where that new money would come from.

Take the extra $4 million out of the $300 million we shovel at the police. Then we'll talk about what we could do with the other $296 million.

"I looove cops!" says mayoral candidate.

Well, at least she doesn't lie like the last two mayors that talked tough on the SPD and rolled out the battle gear and lined up behind them every time they went hog wild on a citizen.

@1 Treating individuals differently based on their wealth does not, in itself, violate the Equal Protection Clause. See San Antonio Indp. School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) ("At least where wealth is involved, the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.").

Wealth discrimination, unlike racial or religious or sex discrimination, is permissible so long as the government has some reasonable justification for discriminating. See Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972) ("The criterion for differing treatment must bear some relevance to the object of the legislation.").

Even where a reasonable justification for wealth discrimination exists, wealth discrimination can still be unconstitutional if the discrimination deprives individuals of a "fundamental right" on the basis of their wealth. See Phillips v. Snyder, 836 F.3d 707, 719 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing San Antonio, supra). Thus, laws that impose financial barriers to fundamental rights like voting or appealing judgments are always unconstitutional unless indigent persons are given a break. But laws that impose financial barriers to non-fundamental rights are permissible so long as the laws have a reasonable justification.

In the case of the proposed graduated traffic fine scheme, the purpose of the fine is to promote highway safety by ensuring that the wealthy feel enough "bite" from tickets to modulate their behavior—a perfectly reasonable justification for wealth discrimination. No fundamental rights are being threatened, and even if they were, the discriminated class are wealthy enough to pay the fine anyway, so they would not experience any financial barrier to their rights. Ms. Durkan's scheme does not in any way violate the Equal Protection Clause.