Gov. Mark Sanford said Thursday he could not support a stronger seat belt bill as passed by the Senate, but his staff would not say if that meant the governor would veto the bill.

The $12 fine for not wearing a seat belt is too low, Sanford said in a written statement, and the bill would prevent juries in civil suits from knowing if a plaintiff was wearing a seat belt if injured in a car crash.

“I don’t see why we would want to create another way for people to be taxed by government if we are not willing to enact market-based solutions that would impact people’s behavior in a much broader way than a simple fine,” Sanford said.

“Without those changes, I will not be able to support this bill.”

Asked for clarification, Sanford spokesmen Chris Drummond and Will Folks would not say whether that meant Sanford would veto the bill if it came to his desk in its present form.

The governor’s other choices would be to sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.

“The statement speaks for itself,” Drummond said.

Supporters of the bill said they hope Sanford reconsiders.

The issues the governor raises should not be enough to derail the bill, said Tracy Tisdale, executive director of the S.C. chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

“We don’t think that’s such an incompatible issue that it needs to have our entire seat belt bill, that we worked so hard to get, killed or vetoed by the governor,” Tisdale said. “One doesn’t have to trump the other.”

State Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, one of the leaders of the seat belt cause in the Senate, said Sanford is trying to confuse the issue.

“That’s just a smoke screen,” Hutto said. “He never has supported the bill.

“Every group in the state that is supportive of improved highway safety is behind the bill. There is no reason not to support a bill that is going to save lives.”

The bill passed the Senate 33-12 on Feb. 2. That would be enough support to override the governor’s veto, should he choose to reject the bill.

The bill now is before the House. In 2003, the House voted 65-46 in favor of it, a few votes short of the number needed to override a veto.

Sen. Jim Ritchie, R-Spartanburg, who voted for the tougher seat belt law, sees less danger in Sanford’s message.

“There was always a sense that the governor was not going to be an advocate for the bill,” Ritchie said. “Now that we know his preferences, it’s constructive to help us work through them.”

The bill is before the House Education and Public Works Committee. Chairman Ronnie Townsend, R-Anderson, said a member of Sanford’s staff told him shortly after it passed the Senate that the governor did not support its version.

“We’d be happy to hear from any member of his staff, or from the governor himself, about why he feels it needs changes,” Townsend said. “Overall, it’s a pretty good bill.”

House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, agrees. The House, which passed a similar bill twice last year only to see both die in the Senate, likely will pass the bill again this year, he said.

The governor’s concerns will be considered, Wilkins said, but it should become law with or without the governor’s changes.

“I’m going to support the bill with or without that,” he said.

Hutto, a trial lawyer, said juries generally already know whether a plaintiff is wearing a seat belt. The information shows up in other ways, such as whether the plaintiff has bruises caused by the lap or shoulder belt, or whether he was thrown from the car.

If the so-called “negligence clause” was written into law, as Sanford prefers, it would require every plaintiff and defendant to hire an expert to explain what would have happened had the plaintiff worn a seat belt.

Reach Gould Sheinin at (803) 771-8658 or asheinin@thestate.com Staff writer Jeff Stensland contributed to this report.