States’ Rights to Deadly Car Crashes
As I wrote yesterday, legal crackdowns on distracted driving are a public health no-brainer. When you try to pilot a fast-moving and extremely heavy vehicle while also sending and receiving text messages and phone calls, you are endangering not only your own life but the life of everyone else trying to get from point A to point B. Thankfully, members of congress are considering legislative action to address the problem. Oddly, however, as Elana Schor explains it’s become a point of political contention.
Basically Jay Rockefeller and a group of three Republicans wants to offer extra money to states that tackle distracted driving. But back in July, a group of Democratic senators proposed penalizing states that fail to pass bills tackling distracted driving. Chuck Schumer, sensibly, is on board for both approaches. Kay Bailey Hutchison, less sensibly, opposes the stick approach and does so in a manner designed to analogize herself to white supremacists:
“I don’t think we ought to get into states’ rights,” Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who is campaigning for her state’s governorship next year, said. “[T]he states have addressed this in very different ways, but many of them are addressing it.”
Vernon Betkey, chairman of the Governors’ Highway Safety Association (GHSA), which represents state highway officials, echoed Hutchison’s stance in a Thursday appearance before the House transportation committee.
Hutchison’s opponent, of course, is Rick Perry who’s been making noise about secession recently. Obviously there’s something in the water down there.
As for the merits of Hutchison’s proposal, it would be interesting to see a legislator stake out a principled opposition to all federal conditional financial grants. You could do that either by opposing all federal financial grants (no money for highways, schools, etc.) or by opposing all conditionality. But to stake out the view that there’s nothing wrong with conditional grants per se but that we daren’t interfere with states’ sacred right to permit dangerous driving practices seems very strange.
27 Responses to “States’ Rights to Deadly Car Crashes”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Why not just let states handle all that, including paying for it? Enough with Ted Stevens & Robert Byrd! Down with red state welfare!
Robin Hanson says we should prefer local government when it comes to spending money.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Hutchison’s opponent, of course, is Rick Perry who’s been making noise about secession recently. Obviously there’s something in the water down there.
You know, with KBH and Gov. Goodhair trying to shore up the crazies, the Dems could make some inroads and make this competitive. A long shot but a guy can dream right?
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
What the hell is “does so in a manner designed to analogize herself to white supremacists” supposed to mean? Look, the Supreme Court has upheld these conditional funding things. There’s clearly a rational relationship between highway spending and texting bans. In other words, there’s no legitimate constitutional objection to this proposal.
But why can’t you just stop there and quit while your ahead. Why bring up this “white supremacist” shit? There seems to be some progressive meme that says all concerns about federalism are ipso facto racist. It’s stupid. It’s ignorant. It’s annoying. Yes, yes, we all know that racial integration was opposed on “states’ rights” grounds. But federalism is far older than that and is a basic principle of our constitution. If there was some possible, tenuous connection to race, however, remote maybe you could pull this “states rights is racial code” shit. But, a ban on texting while driving? How can you possibly turn that into a racial issue? You come across like a petulant undegrad, grow up.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Oh give it a rest. Just because you accept the idea of conditional grants doesn’t mean you have to oppose all of them if you oppose any of them. I’m a Democrat and an Obama supporter – so no caricaturing – but I’m with Hutchinson on this. The Congress has a lot more important things to deal with.
Yes, driving while texting is extremely dangerous and it should be illegal. The people who run state governments are big boys and girls, though. They don’t need Congress’s help to deal with it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I hate to side with the “states rights” folks, but this is exactly the issue that could be handled by the states. If Louisiana bans texting while driving, and Texas does not, how is Louisiana hurt by this? It’s not as if folks are going to race across the Texas border just so they can start texting each other while driving.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Yglesias:
As another commenter alluded to, this may seem weird to you as a matter of policy, but descriptively it is very close to the approach that currently prevailing constitutional law takes to the issue. Compare New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) with South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), and note that in order to pass constitutional muster, the conditional spending approach is much safer than the regulate the states directly approach. I don’t know if that’s Hutchison’s reason for this position (although it easily could be), but I don’t think her position is as incoherent as you suggest.
The post suggests that Hutchison only opposes the “carrot” option, meaning you’re not actually with her on this.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Sorry, that last part should read “The post suggests that Hutchison only opposes the ’stick’ option…”
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
This is stupid. Do you have to support all conditional grants on principle if you support any of them? Why should she have to oppose them?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“and does so in a manner designed to analogize herself to white supremacists”
I searched the linked story thinking this was a reference to something else Hutchison may have said, but all I see is the same quote Matt referenced. I concur with previous commentors…WTF, Matt?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Obviously, the reason this is a states rights issue is because in Texas, most emails and text messages are racist jokes about the president.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I realize that SCOTUS has given its approval to this sort of conditional funding, but I feel it’s a cheap end-run around Article I.
If Texans want to kill each other, let them.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
yet all of these people had absolutely no problem when the Reagan Administration required all states to raise their drinking ages to 21 – something explicitly left to the states when Prohibition was ended. A Republican Administration gets all high-handed about personal rights and Republicans have absolutely no problem. A Democratic Administration tries to solve a public safety issue via the exact same method and suddenly the Republicans get all “states rights” holy.
Texting while driving is supported by nobody except for the big commericial trucking interests. Their money talks and obviously to the Republican whores (there, I said it), that money is more important than saving lives.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Is the states right argument that: Even though the
federal government is sending money to the states,
it does not have the right to tell states what
to do with that money? And ‘punishing’ them by sending
less money hurts the baby jesus?
Or is it something more sofistercated?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
It is clear that texting is dangerous
because death rates on the highways have gone up
noticeably in the past few years.
Except they have actually gone down.
So tell me again
how texting is even more dangerous ( and ubiquitous)
than drunk driving.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
yet all of these people had absolutely no problem when the Reagan Administration required all states to raise their drinking ages to 21 – something explicitly left to the states when Prohibition was ended. A Republican Administration gets all high-handed about personal rights and Republicans have absolutely no problem. A Democratic Administration tries to solve a public safety issue via the exact same method and suddenly the Republicans get all “states rights” holy.
Yes, which is why it’s important when debating issues like this not to let partisan support drive one into hypocrisy.
Some things (indeed, many things) should be left to the states, where the populace has more direct control over their representatives. I think traffic laws, which have almost a 100% local impact, fall into this category. I fail to see a compelling argument as to why they shouldn’t.
Tying compliance to funding rather than just passing legislation was obnoxious when the Reagan Administration did it, and it’s obnoxious now…even more so, actually, given the perilous fiscal environment most states are facing.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Also, legalize Hamsterdam.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
When do you plan to start your jihad against cup holders and drive throughs?
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I don’t think it’s problematic to support some conditional grants but not others — you may disagree with the policy aims of a conditional grant. However, if you support some conditional grants, you shouldn’t oppose other conditional grants on the basis of their being conditional grants.
In other words, oppose the ban because you think there is a policy reason not to ban texting while driving, but don’t oppose it for essentially process reasons. So unless KBH is prepared to explain why banning texting is an infringement on states rights and, e.g., setting the drinking age at 21 isn’t, her argument is flawed and hypocritical.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
The phrase, “state’s rights” sounds particularly ugly in the mouth of a southern politician.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
The reason Matt brought up the white supremacist angle is because he never misses an opportunity to accuse others of racism, no matter how ridiculously tenuous. I think he must be a very insecure person, and he does it to feel better about himself, and superior to others. There’s really no other reason for it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
The reason Matt brought up the white supremacist angle is because he never misses an opportunity to accuse others of racism, no matter how ridiculously tenuous. I think he must be a very insecure person, and he does it to feel better about himself, and superior to others. There’s really no other reason for it.
Or it could be because parts of the country are full of guys like you, denying racism at any turn, except the non-issue of “reverse” racism.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Oh come on. Republican support for “states rights” is extremely fungible depending upon the issue and who holds power in Washington. St. Ronnie pushed for a national drinking age of 21 – and succeeded- back in the day by threatening to withhold federal highway funds.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Based on the second part of her statement “[T]he states have addressed this in very different ways, but many of them are addressing it,” perhaps the “state’s rights” comments was mostly an inartful way of saying “It would be best for individual states to set policy, and not the federal government.”
Which makes perfect sense to me, as it’s not clear why Wyoming and Montana would have the same cell phone/texting laws as the Northeast or Los Angeles. In some ways, she’s expressing two different responses to the issue – the first is a procedural “who gets to decide what Texans do” question, while the second is more “who would be best able to decide what Texans do.” I think it’s pretty clear what the law on the first question would be (Feds when it comes to highway funding), but that doesn’t make it necessarily a good policy.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I support efforts by the states to bring awareness of the dangers of texting and driving.
Besides drunk driving and texting, another extremely dangerous behavior is not often discussed. Many drivers admit to have nodded off while driving. Opening the window or turning up the radio isn’t enough when drivers are falling asleep.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:54 am
yet all of these people had absolutely no problem when the Reagan Administration required all states to raise their drinking ages to 21
Nothwistanding that the Reagan adminstration was all about keeping the govt out of your business – except when it came to placating the religious right – and that Liddy Dole is one of worst persons in the world (to borrow from Olberman), but the Democrats were in charge of both houses of the Congress at the time of drinking age mandate – and so deserve their share of the credit/blame.
(and really, the type of stuff really got under a full head a steam with Carter and the 55 mph mandate)
November 4th, 2009 at 11:29 am
yet all of these people had absolutely no problem when the Reagan Administration required all states to raise their drinking ages to 21
Nothwistanding that the Reagan adminstration was all about keeping the govt out of your business – except when it came to placating the religious right – and that Liddy Dole is one of worst persons in the world (to borrow from Olberman), but the Democrats were in charge of both houses of the Congress at the time of drinking age mandate – and so deserve their share of the credit/blame.
(and really, the type of stuff really got under a full head a steam with Carter and the 55 mph mandate)
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi
November 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Rick Perry is making noises about secession? My answer would be, don’t let the door hit you in the behind on the way out.