Derham Cole for State House

Some South Carolina magistrates are throwing out drunken-driving cases because the drivers were on mopeds, which are exempt from SC motor-vehicle laws.

But Wednesday, a state Senate committee approved a bill that would reclassify mopeds as a motor vehicle in terms of enforcing drinking-and-driving laws only.

You don’t need a driver’s license to drive a moped in South Carolina, making it a popular choice for drunken-driving offenders with suspended licenses. In the Senate version of the bill, DUI offenders with suspended licenses still could drive mopeds. But they would no longer be exempt from state drunken-driving laws.

The bill, originally sponsored by state Reps. Eddie Tallon and Derham Cole, both Spartanburg Republicans, passed the SC House last year. That version of the proposal would have considered a moped to be a motor vehicle in all aspects of the law.

State law defines a moped as having a motor of less than 50-cubic centimeters and not capable of going faster than 30 miles per hour.

State troopers have had magistrates dismiss several DUI cases involving mopeds, said Col. Michael Oliver, commander of the state Highway Patrol.

Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, called that “a glitch in the law.”

“This will take care of that loophole,” he said.

Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, initially objected to the law because he said the state also exempts tractors and bicycles from drunken-driving laws.

“I don’t think you should operate a moped drunk,” he said. “But what are you going to do, suspend their license? You don’t need a license to drive a moped.”

Source: The State

Conservative Republican Derham Cole comes through with a strong showing in the annual legislative scorecard. This year, Rep. Cole received an “A” rating from the SC Chamber of Commerce.

This latest report only confirms how dedicated Rep. Cole is to tackling the important issues facing our state and district. You can view the entire scorecard online. Please visit his Facebook page now to leave a comment or question.

The following is an op-ed printed in The Spartanburg Herald-Journal:

It’s an odd assertion that a “true conservative” is someone who wants the government to subsidize private education and that those who want to protect the public schools are somehow phony conservatives.

But that’s the allegation six Spartanburg lawmakers are facing. They voted against the latest school voucher scheme and fell afoul of the groups established with out-of-state money to push this agenda in South Carolina. They also angered some tea party groups that are quick to believe any allegation of phony conservatism.

The truth is that the Spartanburg Six — Reps. Rita Allison, Steve Parker, Eddie Tallon, Mike Forrester, Derham Cole and Doug Brannon— did the right thing.

The measure billed as “school choice” would not have opened up new choices to parents or children. Its overall effect would have been to make private school more affordable for parents already able to make that choice. It offered such parents a tax credit to help pay the tuition. Poor parents, who can’t pay the tuition up front and don’t make enough money to take advantage of the tax credit, would have been left out in the cold. The bill offered them only the unlikely promise of privately financed scholarships.

The bill would not have improved any schools. It would have taken scarce resources away from the public schools, and it would have eroded the independence of private schools. Government money always comes with government strings. If this voucher bill had passed, it would have been only a matter of time before the General Assembly applied its accountability system and school report cards to private schools. Lawmakers would have declared that the state could not be subsidizing private schools without holding them accountable. Sooner or later, private schools would have to adopt the same tests and curriculum as public schools.

It’s time to get past the lie that parents who pay to send their children to private schools pay for education twice, or that they pay for schools they don’t use. The truth is that we do not pay taxes to support public schools solely to educate our own children. We support a public school system so that we can live in an educated society. We support a public school system because the alternative is an illiterate populace, rampant poverty and a hopeless future.

The Spartanburg Six voted to protect the public schools because they recognize that there is no reasonable alternative. It’s not because they don’t want parents to have choices, but they recognize that there will be no free-market utopia where tax credits allow all parents the choice between excellent private academies and the government is out of the education business. That plan simply isn’t realistic.

The Spartanburg Six are not slaves to the teachers’ unions or some liberal agenda. Public education is not some leftist tenet. It is not some new liberal invention. It’s the method this nation has used for generations to create the success we have had. That system isn’t perfect. Our schools are struggling in many ways, but voucher schemes like the one rejected by the Spartanburg Six would not help.

Driving drunk on a mo-ped would become illegal in South Carolina under a bill given initial approval.

A House panel voted 5-0 on Tuesday to send the measure to the full Education and Public Works Committee.

Current state law specifically excludes mo-peds from the definition of a motor vehicle. The measure would remove the exclusion, allowing officers to charge drunken mo-ped drivers with driving under the influence.

Republican Rep. Derham Cole of Spartanburg says legislators need to tighten the law to help prosecutors make the roads safer.

Law enforcement officers say people often get around on a mo-ped after losing their driver’s license. If they are stopped for driving drunk, they can be charged with public disorderly conduct. Officers supporting the change include Public Safety Director Mark Keel.

Courtesy of the Spartanburg Herald-Journal

fixture in Spartanburg’s philanthropic community was recognized on Monday as the 2011 South Carolina Mother of the Year.

Marianna Black Habisreutinger, mother to three grown children and grandmother of two, was recognized for her ability to skillfully balance her family commitments as well as her many commitments to the community. She became the third Spartanburg resident to receive the award since its inception in 1942.

Habisreutinger’s family and friends joined her at the Statehouse for an afternoon awards presentation and reception with Gov. Nikki Haley. Habisreutinger also was presented with a resolution from the S.C. House of Representatives by Reps. Derham Cole Jr., Rita Allison and Eddie Tallon.

She soon will travel to Salt Lake City for the national Mother of the Year convention, where a national winner will be named from the pool of state winners on May 1.

“It’s such an honor, and I look forward to going to Utah and meeting mothers from all over the country,” Habisreutinger said.

From her point of view, Habisreutinger said a Mother of the Year is a woman “who first of all loves her family, appreciates her heritage and the gifts that she’s been given to follow a tradition of service to her community. A very special challenge and opportunity being a mother is to pass that on to the next generation.”

Haley said Habisreutinger certainly fits the bill.

“As a mother, you strive for what every mother wants to be, which is the ability to balance service and motherhood and caring and strength, all in one,” Haley said. “You’ve done that beautifully. You’re going to represent South Carolina well.”

Haley recognized Habisreutinger’s husband, Roger, for supporting his wife throughout the years. She stressed that the qualities represented in the Mother of the Year are vital to the state, especially in times of change and transition.

“I believe what made her stand out is her love for volunteerism,” Roger Habisreutinger said of his wife. “It is her caring for her fellow man, because most of the organizations that she’s involved in are in one way or another serving the public at large.”

For her part, Habisreutinger is involved with numerous nonprofits and community groups, including the University of South Carolina Upstate, Storm Eye Institute of the Medical University of South Carolina, Ellen Hines Smith Girls Home, Charles Lea Center Foundation, Cancer Association of Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties Inc., Spartanburg Methodist College and the Wellvista Advisory Board. She has served as a trustee for the Mary Black Foundation Board and Mary Black Memorial Hospital for more than 20 years and has served as president of the Junior League of Spartanburg, chairwoman of the Spartanburg County Foundation, member of the Board of Visitors of the Medical University of South Carolina, chairwoman of St. Luke’s Free Medical Clinic and chairwoman of Urban League of the Upstate.

The Charles Lea Center Foundation nominated Habisreutinger for the state award. She founded the group in 1985.

Ann Flynn, a Spartanburg resident and chairwoman of the S.C. Mother of the Year search committee, spoke of Habisreutinger’s “boundless energy,” “unstoppable determination” and “gracious Spartanburg charm.”

“There is no one I can think of that has done more or has been more visible, especially in the area of health care, education and the arts,” Flynn said. “Not only has Marianna balanced her family commitments, but she has instilled in each one of her children a commitment in the community.”

Her son, Charles Habisreutinger, said the importance of giving back was something instilled in him and his two siblings at an early age. It’s something his mother has abided by for most of her life.

“She just puts everyone else before herself,” he said. “Whether it’s philanthropic or community or business, she just thinks of other people before herself.”

Courtesy of the Spartanburg Herald-Journal

Balanced Reform protects citizens & improves business climate

(Columbia, SC) – Today, by a final vote of 100 to 7, the South Carolina House of Representatives passed a comprehensive Tort Reform bill (H. 3375) aimed at protecting both our state’s citizens and business from unfair lawsuit abuse.

Touted by many business organizations as one of the most effective economic improvement issues before the General Assembly, the measure will lower the cost of doing business in South Carolina and make our state more competitive by reducing frivolous lawsuits and placing a cap on punitive damages. Similar Tort Reform measures have already passed in neighboring states.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell issued the following statement about the House passing this key piece of legislation:

“The House has constantly fought for reforms that improve our state’s business climate and helps the private sector to create more jobs. Maintaining our low-tax, pro-business and competitive climate is key to our state’s economic recovery.

“Businesses in South Carolina – especially small businesses – are too often one frivolous lawsuit away from being put out of business. Our goal with this Tort Reform bill is to bring fair balance to our system, lower the cost of doing business and make our state more competitive while still protecting our citizens from wrongdoing.

“Under these lawsuit abuse reform provisions, businesses will be able to operate and grow without the constant threat of costly frivolous lawsuits or overly inflated settlements hanging over them. This fairly balanced system will protect our state’s citizens, greatly benefit existing businesses and will make our state more attractive to new businesses.

“Last year, the House passed a similar Tort Reform bill but the legislative session ended before it could become law. This year, the House took quick action on this key economic issue to give this measure plenty of time to become law this session.”

COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina’s House Republicans ushered the “Voter ID” legislation through the House today on a party-line vote.

“Protecting the integrity of the election system of South Carolina is the goal of this bill,” said Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach. “Voting is a constitutionally protected right and cannot be abridged. Four out of every five Americans supports showing a picture identification to vote. The House Republicans are fighting to ensure fair and secure elections in this state.”

For the last two years, the House Republicans have approved Voter ID – one of the top agenda items for the S.C. Republican Party. The legislation requires voters to show a government-issued picture identification (a driver’s license, passport, or military ID) to prove their identity when they vote. It also requires creation of a new voter registration card with a photograph. The fee for a state picture ID card is waived until the state can issue free voter registration cards with a photograph on them.

Despite rhetorical hyperbole of Democrats, the Voter ID legislation approved today has nothing to do with voter suppression or abridging someone’s right to vote. Under the current system, all you need is a voter registration card with your name and address.

“It is not the intention of the Republicans to disenfranchise anybody. As Republicans and elected officials, we want every legally eligible person to vote,” said House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham. “A strong electoral system, where the integrity of each vote is beyond reproach, is what makes our democracy strong. This legislation will ensure that in our state.”

Similar Voter ID laws in Georgia and Indiana have been upheld by the Department of Justice and the United States Supreme Court. The bill approved today mirrors the legislation approved by the House Republicans in 2009.

“Do we have to wait until we have proof of widespread fraud before we close a loophole that we know exists,” asked Rep. Bruce Bannister of Greenville, the Assistant Majority Leader. “Without secure elections, our entire political process is compromised.”

The Voter ID legislation will now go to the Senate, where a similar bill is currently on the calendar.

The approval of the Voter ID legislation marks the second agenda item approved by the S.C. House Republicans in three weeks. Two other items – the Higher Education Transparency and Tort Reform bills – are set to receive committee hearings this week.

Barry Gonsalves says he and James Grisham were joking about who could make it down a big hill the fastest on their mopeds at 9 p.m. on Oct. 9 when a car came from behind, hitting and killing Grisham.

Grisham, 49, was one of at least 10 moped riders killed in South Carolina this year, according to research by Democratic state Sen. Thomas Alexander’s office.

Too slow to keep up with highway traffic and too fast to be easily passed, mopeds increasingly are involved in fatal accidents across the USA. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) reports the number of fatalities involving mopeds doubled between 2005 and 2009, from 48 to 96.

Legislation aimed at cutting down that figure is pending or was adopted last year in a dozen states, according to Anne Teigen of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Teigen says at least 17 states require a driver’s licenses to operate a moped. A bill that would require a license is up for debate in North Carolina and Washington state enacted a license law last year, the NCSL reports.

Bills that would require moped riders to wear helmets are pending in Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland and Washington, although some would cover only riders under 21 or 18.

In Washington, a bill that would require riders to wear helmets unless they have health insurance that would cover the cost of injuries was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and carried over for action in the 2011 session.

In South Carolina, drivers whose licenses have been suspended can ride mopeds for up to six months before they have to get a moped license.

To the surprise of state Rep. Derham Cole, R-Spartanburg, it’s not against the law to ride a moped while drunk in South Carolina.

Mopeds were excluded in the definition of “motor vehicle” in the state’s DUI law, he says. He is filing legislation to close that loophole.

“I just think it’s a common sense issue,” he says. “If someone is going to be driving a motorized vehicle on the roadway with other vehicles, then they should be subject to the same laws that pertain to driving under the influence.”

Most states that require a license to operate a moped consider driving one drunk a DUI offense, Teigen says.

Cyd Phillips of Easley, S.C., whose brother was killed on a moped, says she believes lawmakers should require more lights on mopeds, put a moped-rider rights question on driver’s license tests and install more roundabouts in an effort to slow traffic.

Another tragedy can be prevented, she says, if drivers slow down and watch out for mopeds.

“Everybody has the right to be on this road out here,” she says.

Courtesy: USA Today

It makes no sense for South Carolina’s drunken driving laws to exempt mo-ped driving. Driving any sort of vehicle while intoxicated should be a crime.

But, for some reason, South Carolina’s lawmakers decided to exempt mo-peds from the law. Local law enforcement agencies have been forced to drop charges against mo-ped drivers who have been arrested for driving under the influence.

These people can only be charged with disorderly conduct. That allows them to get right back out on the road.

Don’t think that because they drive a small, light vehicle that drunken mo-ped drivers aren’t a threat to anyone other than themselves. Any drunken driver is a menace. Car and truck drivers trying to avoid a drunken mo-ped driver can collide with other cars and trucks or swerve off the road. You don’t need to drive a big vehicle to cause a deadly crash.

There is no legitimate excuse for operating any motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. South Carolina has had lax drunken driving laws for too long. The holes in the Palmetto State’s system to handle this problem must be filled.

Mo-ped laws are clearly one of these problems. South Carolinians have referred to mo-peds as “liquorcycles” for a reason. They have often served as a transportation solution for those who have lost their driver’s licenses due to drunken driving.

Moving a drunken driver from an automobile to a mo-ped is not the solution. These drivers must be taken off the roads.

State Reps. Derham Cole Jr. and Eddie Tallon have announced that they have prefiled a bill that would define mo-peds as motor vehicles and allow the prosecution of those who drive a mo-ped while intoxicated. The bill should be quickly passed by lawmakers.

But the General Assembly shouldn’t stop there. It should take an overall look at drunken driving laws and the judicial system for enforcing those laws. Lawmakers should examine whether the state is truly getting drunken drivers off the roads.

Too often, when someone is killed by an intoxicated driver, we have found that this motorist was arrested multiple times for driving under the influence but was still allowed back on the roads. Laws have been tightened a little in recent years, but have the changes made a difference?

Filling the loophole in the law regarding mo-peds is an obvious first step, and Cole and Tallon deserve congratulations for recognizing the problem and addressing it. But the state needs to examine whether the changes in DUI laws made in recent years are having the necessary effect.

If repeat drunken drivers are not being effectively taken off the roads, more changes may be needed.

Courtesy: GoUpstate.com