Opponents of the highway tax say we should spend the money we already have more fairly.

I agree - and can’t help but note that the money the new tax would bring in would “follow the cars.”

Voters will decide the matter on Nov. 6. The halfcent increase would last 10 years and fi nance a $1.3 billion bond issue for road projects. For Northwest Arkansas, that tax would mean adding lanes to Interstate 540 and building two lanes of the Bella Vista bypass. The program would also open the first phase of the proposed Springdale northern bypass, from I-540 to Arkansas 112. About 25 percent of the sales tax money would go to projects in Benton and Washington counties.

To repeat: One-fourth of the money would go to two of the state’s 75 counties.

Those two counties happen to be ours. Other projects in other parts of the state largely follow the principal of spending the money where there’s traff c.

Enlightened, progressive policy? A wise investment in the growing portions of the state? An answer to the call for reform? Hardly. The highway tax proponents are hunting where the ducks are. They need votes. We have them. Sometimes, investment in the growing portion of the state walks the same path as severely practical politics.

But the tax wouldn’tbe needed if we only distributed the state highway money we already have more fairly, opponents argue.

Let’s very optimistically assume a distribution change alone would get these earmarked projects done in half the time we expect them to take now.

They’d still be fi ve years away at least. Consider also the budget chaos in Washington, from which we get much of our highway money.

Why can’t we have both the tax and reform?

Suppose we pass the road tax - or not. Suppose, in the same election, we vote for pro-reform lawmakers.

Suppose those lawmakers go to Little Rock and refer an amendment to the 2014 ballot. Suppose that amendment would shake up the makeup of the state Highway Commission.

This tax campaign has raised awareness of the need for reform - whatever the result of the vote. Giving the current system $1.8 billion in projects could take steam out of a reform drive, I suppose. However, inertia against reform won’tdisappear if this road tax fails, either.

Passing the road tax doesn’t preclude reform and rejecting the road tax certainly doesn’t guarantee reform. The Arkansas Highway Commission wouldn’t be the fi rst public body to choose the status quo over broader public support.

Suppose the state House really does go Republican and wants to “rock the boat,” in Rep. Jon Woods of Springdale’s favorite phrase. Few boats need rocking more than state highway funding.

The whole issue begs the question of why a “fair” distribution isn’t the case already.

The state constitutional amendment setting up the Highway Commission passed in 1952. Guess what the chances were for adopting a system through which the “money would follow the cars” in more heavily traveled areas in 1952.

The Arkansas Highway Commission is set up to represent the highway system, not people. Each commissioner represents two engineering districts.

Those districts don’t have to be next to each other.

In fact, some “spread” is normal. This “balances” representation on the commission.

The state Highway Commission is like the U.S.Senate, where Wyoming and Rhode Island have just as many votes as California and New York. It’s designed to ensure that smaller, less populated areas don’t get neglected. The problem is there’s no House of Representatives. There’s no check and balance to veer things toward the most good for the most people.

A proposed constitutional amendment to change the make-up of the commission was brought up in the last session of the Legislature. It was pulled down after the Highway Commission promised to look at reforming itself. The commission looked, then pronounced that no change was needed. That was amistake. If the commission had reformed itself, however slightly, that would have taken much of the bite out of the criticism that the money should, but does not, follow the cars.

So now we have a commission by which all areas of the state are viewed as equal, and its members are campaigning for a tax where some areas are defi nitely more equal than others. Sounds like a tacit admission that representation reform on the commission is needed to me, whatever the tax election’s results.

DOUG THOMPSON IS A POLITICAL REPORTER AND COLUMNIST FOR NWA MEDIA.

Opinion, Pages 14 on 10/21/2012