Seat belt bill is a lesson in politics

It was the primary seat belt bill that drew the largest and most emotionally charged testimony to the Capitol this week. Senate Bill 237, sponsored by Sen. Dave Lewis, R-Helena, would have made not wearing a seat belt a primary offense.

Even though the bill was ultimately defeated by a split vote, support and opposition for the bill was spirited from both sides of the isle. It seems like few issues in Helena are as simple as they first appear, and the issue of the seat belt is no exemption.  

Since 1988, the law in Montana states that drivers and passengers must wear a seat belt. The catch is, however, is that law enforcement officers cannot stop any driver for failing to wear a seat belt unless that driver violates another offense.

Failing to wear a seat belt is what is called a secondary offense, or as I like to refer it as a “mini-law.” A state trooper can observe a driver or passenger violating the law but does not have the authority to do anything about it.

Up front, I have to say I have never been comfortable with the idea of having any law that can be flagrantly ignored. Senate Bill 237 proposed to change the law by making it a primary offense and allow enforcement of wearing seat belts.

Opponents of the bill pointed to personal responsibility, freedom of choice and the passage of a primary seat belt law would simply move Montana closer to a “nanny state.” In general, those in rural districts were more inclined to oppose the bill and those living in more urban areas tended to favor passage. Once again, the debate highlighted a growing division within our state between the growing urban centers and the declining rural areas. 

I thought the most compelling augment against the bill came from Sen. Sharon Stewart-Peregoy, D-Crow Agency. Stewart-Peregoy offered personal testimony of being racially profiled while driving on Montana’s highways. She argued that the passage of Senate Bill 237 would give one more excuse for law enforcement to stop law-abiding Native Americans.

Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy, D-Box Elder, agreed and rose in opposition to the bill. The dissenting vote among the Native American legislators was Sen. Carol Juneau, D-Browning, who argued in favor of the bill for the reason that it would serve to protect children.

Arguments for Senate Bill 237 echoed those heard in earlier committee hearings that had filled the Old Supreme Court room in the Capitol. Impassioned supporting augments that greater enforcement of seat belts would save lives, reduce the taxpayer burden from medical services, lower insurance premiums and create safer highways were all brought forth on the Senate floor.

On the second reading, one senator supporting the bill perhaps let his emotions get the better of him, and his remarks drifted dangerously towards violating Senate rules by singling out those senators who opposed the bill.

Senate rules state that one should argue the merits of the bill, and personality should be kept out of the discussion. In this case, even though the good senator later apologized, it may have eroded his position and adversely affected the final outcome. The final role call was 25-25. On split decisions, bills fail to pass the Senate

As a matter of record, I voted in favor of Senate Bill 237 and believe that wearing a seat belt is in the best interest of Montana. I read hundreds of e-mails in support of the bill and was glad to receive a personal message from my good friend and a former state senator, Bob DePratu. I am working on a compromise bill that would at least protect children and minors and believe it will receive a favorable reception.  

For more information on current bills, hearing dates, and how to contact your local legislator, visit online at http://mt.gov or http://leg.mt.gov.

Sen. Ryan Zinke, R-White fish, represents Whitefish and Columbia Falls.