Here are details on the sustained ATV bill veto, starting with the governor’s message:

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR
State of South Carolina
Office of the Governor
P. O. Box 11369
Columbia, SC 29211
May 15, 2007

The Honorable Andre Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, 1st Floor East Wing
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

(R41, S348 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=348&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/348.doc> version))) — Senators Hutto and Land: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FISH, GAME, AND WATERCRAFT, SO AS TO ENACT "CHANDLER’S LAW" BY ADDING CHAPTER 26 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATION OF THE OPERATION OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES INCLUDING A REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON FIFTEEN YEARS OLD OR YOUNGER WHO OPERATES AN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE MUST POSSESS A SAFETY CERTIFICATE INDICATING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF AN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE SAFETY COURSE, AND MUST WEAR A SAFETY HELMET AND EYE PROTECTION WHEN OPERATING AN ATV, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN TO KNOWINGLY PERMIT HIS CHILD OR WARD UNDER AGE SIX TO OPERATE AN ATV, AND PROVIDING FURTHER RESTRICTIONS WHEN OPERATING AN ATV ON LANDS THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT ALLOW OPERATION OF AN ATV, TO PROVIDE THAT ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES ARE EXEMPT FROM AD VALOREM TAXES BEGINNING WITH CALENDAR YEAR 2007, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10A SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE TITLING OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES.

I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval S. 348, R-41.

I have met and spoken with Chandler’s parents several times over the last two years regarding the background of this legislation and their position on the bill, and I am genuinely sorry for the profound loss they have experienced.

In the course of these discussions, I have come to admire Steve and Pamela Saylor for honoring Chandler by setting up a scholarship fund and working on this legislation. However, as commendable as their work is, I find myself in the same position on this bill that I took last year. I am still concerned that this legislation will bring about the unintended consequences of growing government, impinging on private property rights, and diminishing parental responsibility.

The legislation hinges on the notion that all children between the ages of 6-15 must complete and receive certification for completing a safety course before operating an ATV. The course is a four-hour class, typically taught in a single afternoon. While the course is useful and I would encourage riders to take it, we should not use the law to make parents think that their children will somehow know how to operate their ATV’s safely.

Furthermore, this mandate would impose a hidden tax on families, the consequences of which would be deeply felt. Some supporters of this legislation claim that the safety courses are free of charge. This is true for the purchase of most new ATVs, but not on ATVs already owned or purchased used. Thus, for families across South Carolina who already own an ATV, this legislation would require them to pay for the course before some members of the family could use the ATV they already own. According to the ATV Safety Institute, there is a $75 per child charge for the course and $125 per adult. So, under this legislation, a family of four that already owns an ATV would be required to spend $150 for a safety course and up to $400 if the parents wanted to take the course with them. Simply put, we don’t believe the government should be allowed to exercise this kind of power over citizens’ use of their own property on their own land.

I am also concerned about the practical issue of enforcement. The bill requires certification, along with wearing a helmet and goggles in operation of an ATV. While the thinking behind this part of the legislation may be sound, there will likely never be enough will or manpower to put agents in every corner of the state to enforce it. In fact, the probable cause portion of this bill may make it difficult to enforce in a variety of cases.

Proponents of this bill argue that setting these common sense standards for ATV use is similar to the boater safety laws that were passed in 1999. Those laws applied to activity on public waters, not private property. Moreover, the state mandates motorcycle helmets for riders under the age of 21-again as part of the public, not private, roadways. On the other hand, neither moped riders n or bicyclists are mandated to wear helmets by state law. The difference between bicycling accidents and ATV accidents is telling: in the case of bicycling, an injury or death occurs every 16.8 minutes versus roughly every 12.5 hours for an ATV. According to estimates, 90 percent of all injuries sustained by children on ATVs happen because they are riding an ATV designed for an adult-a consideration this legislation would do little to address.

Finally, there should be a practical application of the law when it comes to experience. When South Carolina enacted a mandate for hunters’ safety, current youth hunters were "grandfathered," a provision implicitly acknowledging that experience was more valuable than a training course. The present legislation ignores the fact, for example, that a 14-year-old who has been riding an ATV since age 8 has far mo re experience than any one-day safety course could provide.

Today, law enforcement officers can cite an individual, regardless of age, for operating a motorized vehicle in a reckless or negligent manner in state parks, forests, or wildlife areas. However, even in the best of circumstances, tragic accidents occur.

At the same time, I believe there should be a balance between using our law enforcement powers to increase safety against the private property rights and parental responsibility. While Chandler’s story is a tragic one, I respectfully and regretfully believe that the benefit to the public falls short of the threshold that warrants an erosion of these core values.

For these reasons, I am vetoing S. 348, R-41, and returning it without my approval.

Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Sanford

VETO SUSTAINED

(R41, S348 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=348&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/348.doc> version))) — Senators Hutto and Land: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FISH, GAME, AND WATERCRAFT, SO AS TO ENACT "CHANDLER’S LAW" BY ADDING CHAPTER 26 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATION OF THE OPERATION OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES INCLUDING A REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON FIFTEEN YEARS OLD OR YOUNGER WHO OPERATES AN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE MUST POSSESS A SAFETY CERTIFICATE INDICATING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF AN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE SAFETY COURSE, AND MUST WEAR A SAFETY HELMET AND EYE PROTECTION WHEN OPERATING AN ATV, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN TO KNOWINGLY PERMIT HIS CHILD OR WARD UNDER AGE SIX TO OPERATE AN ATV, AND PROVIDING FURTHER RESTRICTIONS WHEN OPERATING AN ATV ON LANDS THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT ALLOW OPERATION OF AN ATV, TO PROVIDE THAT ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES ARE EXEMPT FROM AD VALOREM TAXES BEGINNING WITH CALENDAR YEAR 2007, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10A SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE TITLING OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator HUTTO argued contra to the Governor’s veto.

Senator CAMPSEN argued in favor of the Governor’s veto.

Senator GROOMS argued in favor of the Governor’s veto

Senator LEVENTIS argued contra to the Governor’s veto.

Senator KNOTTS argued contra to the Governor’s veto.

Senator HUTTO moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 25; Nays 17

AYES

Anderson                 Drummond               Ford
Gregory                   Hayes                      Hutto
Jackson                   Knotts                      Land
Leatherman             Leventis                  Lourie
Malloy                     Matthews                 McGill
Moore                     Patterson                 Peeler
Rankin                    Reese                      Setzler
Sheheen                  Short                       Thomas
Williams

Total–25

NAYS

Alexander                 Bryant                    Campsen
Cleary                    Courson                   Cromer
Fair                      Grooms                    Hawkins
Martin                    McConnell                 O’Dell
Ritchie                   Ryberg                    Scott
Vaughn                    Verdin

Total–17

The Senate Journal from earlier this year shows there were NO ATTEMPTS in the Senate to "correct" all those horrible flaws in the bill that Sens. Campsen, Grooms and others complained about yesterday. And as you know, any of the 15 who voted to sustain the governor’s veto (which was no surprise, since he vetoed the bill last year) could have prevented passage by merely objecting to the bill. No one did so. In fact, it sailed through the Senate in less than two weeks.

Related Posts

• Did anyone pay attention to the State of the State?
• The new Henry McMaster (we can only hope)
• Ol’ Henry can’t catch a break: Tom Davis hits him from the OTHER side of the roads-bill veto
• Lynn Teague on the Legislature’s unfinished business
• Caskey strips out stupidest part of sanctuary cities bill
• Belated congrats on a bipartisan solar victory
• The legislative showdown between SC utilities and reformers
• Again, THIS is how you get things done, people…
• Go read Cindi’s column on the restructuring proposal
• Promising first step on lifting SC’s solar cap