The day before the Senate killed the mandatory seat-belt bill, Dr. Jim Durant visited the office of Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston.

McConnell was out, so Durant wrote him a letter.

“Dear Senator McConnell,” Durant, 54, a longtime Sumter pediatrician, recalled he wrote, “if you pass the seat-belt bill, you can save more lives than a doctor or surgeon can in a whole lifetime.”

Durant never got a reply.

Twenty-four hours later, on Wednesday, a slim Senate majority — acting at McConnell’s behest — killed the bill.

The story of how the seat-belt bill died is a tangled one.

But it also illustrates how political power is wielded in South Carolina, and how a bill that most agree will save lives and money can itself die.

The seat-belt bill is not alone.

For years, the S.C. General Assembly has refused to increase the cigarette tax, a move that, supporters say, would save lives and money. Though a majority of the public favors a higher cigarette tax, lawmakers refuse to pass one.

“It’s basically the same people,” said Sen. John Land, D-Clarendon.

On the surface, this year’s push to pass a mandatory seat-belt bill seemed like a no-brainer.

Studies say it would each year save 100 lives, prevent 1,100 serious injuries and cut $140 million in needless medical costs. Passage also would qualify the state for millions of dollars in federal highway grants.

Working against the bill were party politics, McConnell’s power and his libertarian philosophies, and a lack of interest by Gov. Mark Sanford.

In the final vote to kill the bill, 11 Republican senators abandoned their pro-seat belt positions to side with McConnell, who as Senate leader used Sanford’s neutrality on the issue to claim the governor opposed it as well.

That display of party power offended state Sen. Bill Branton, R-Dorchester, often a McConnell ally. A party leader had asked Branton to “take a walk” if he could not vote with McConnell.

“Taking a walk” means a senator hides in a room off the Senate floor while other senators vote. It results in an abstention instead of a “yea” or “nay.” In close votes, an abstention can determine the outcome.

“I didn’t come here to walk,” an angry Branton told the Senate Wednesday. “I’m here to vote my conscience. ... Please don’t anybody ever ask me to walk.”

The 23-21 vote Wednesday, in which Branton voted against McConnell, climaxed a successful two-month effort by McConnell to deny the majority — which wanted a stronger seat-belt law — a chance to vote on the bill.

‘A COLLECTION PLATE’

This spring, as McConnell and a few Senate allies delayed a vote by filibustering — making endless speeches — the body count of unbuckled S.C. car crash victims mounted.

Since Jan. 1, of the 256 people killed in S.C. vehicle crashes with access to a seat belt, 204 — or 79 percent — were not wearing a seat belt. Studies show about half still would be alive if they had worn a seat belt.

However, the state has — at 66 percent — one of the lowest rates of seat-belt usage. That low usage, in part, is because of S.C. law that prevents police in most cases from citing unbuckled drivers 18 and older, according to Max Young, director of the S.C. Department of Public Safety’s highway safety office.

The bill before the Senate would have allowed police to give any motorist a $25 ticket for not wearing a seat belt. Estimates are that it would increase seat-belt usage to at least 80 percent.

Rarely has a bill enjoyed so much support.

Sixty percent of South Carolinians favor a mandatory seat-belt bill, according to a recent National Safety Council poll. Every major consumer, medical, law enforcement, traffic safety, African-American and Hispanic organization is for it.

Leading the opposition was McConnell, a staunch libertarian who opposes government regulation of personal behavior. He declined to be interviewed for this story.

In Senate speeches, McConnell equated the right to be free from getting a seat-belt ticket to basic American freedoms, such as freedom of speech. He also warned the law would unleash waves of harassment by greedy police who want to collect fines.

“This law would be like a collection plate in small towns,” McConnell said in last week’s filibuster.

Studies say mandatory seat-belt laws have not increased incidents of police harassment in other states.

THE HOUSE, 2002-2003

The seat-belt bill began as a hope without much chance.

In December 2002, state Rep. Joel Lourie, D-Richland, pre-filed a mandatory seat-belt bill in the House.

He knew it was a long shot. “But I felt it was so important we had to take a chance,” Lourie said.

Lourie’s seat-belt bill received the number H. 3128. Resembling laws in about 20 other states, it would allow police to cite adult motorists for not wearing a seat belt. To become law, it would have to pass the House and Senate by June 2004, and then go to the governor.

Ordinarily, a bill sponsored by a Democrat has a hard time passing the GOP-controlled House.

But traffic deaths know no politics.

In recent years, politicians in both parties increasingly have become aware of how a mandatory seat-belt law could help curb South Carolina’s high traffic death rate. Lourie quickly picked up 20 co-sponsors, including some top-ranking Republicans

To many Republicans, the high-cost injuries suffered by motorists who do not wear seat belts are a waste of medical care and money. In the case of low-income motorists, taxpayers wind up paying their medical expenses.

House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, was opposed to a mandatory seat-belt law. But over time, Wilkins said he came to believe the bill would save lives and money.

“It was so clear it would save lives, I no longer felt comfortable voting against it,” said Wilkins.

Wilkins is one of the state’s three most powerful men. The others are the Senate’s McConnell and Governor Sanford.

If two of the three agree on a bill, it usually can become law.

“The governor is crucial,” said former Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat. “If he really wants something, he can threaten to veto other bills.”

However, Sanford — a libertarian like McConnell — stayed neutral in the seat-belt debate.

In the House, the bill had broad support. A minority of representatives opposed it. But unlike the Senate, the House has rules that prevent a filibuster.

On April 10, 2003, the House approved the bill, 65-46.

Of those voting “yea,” 31 were Republican and 34 were Democrat. The Democrats included most members of the Black Caucus, long opposed to a mandatory seat-belt law. They feared giving police extra power to stop law-abiding black citizens.

But Rep. Joe Neal, D-Richland, said he and other black legislators changed their minds after seeing statistics showing a high number of blacks were dying because they weren’t wearing seat belts.

H. 3128 went to the Senate.

THE SENATE: SPRING 2003

In the Senate, the bill went to the Transportation Committee, chaired by Sen. Greg Ryberg, R-Aiken.

Once, Ryberg was a libertarian on the issue. But after talking with police, coroners and doctors — people who see traffic deaths firsthand — he believed a mandatory seat-belt bill would save lives and money.

On May 27, 2003, Ryberg’s committee passed the bill. But Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, lodged an objection. In the Senate, a House-originated bill to which a senator objects is difficult to get to a vote.

H. 3128 went into limbo.

Within days, however, pro-seat belt Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, contacted Lourie.

Hutto had a highway-related bill in a traffic subcommittee that Lourie chaired. Lourie stripped Hutto’s language from S. 356 and inserted the language of the House-passed seat-belt law.

That kind of switching is done openly and generally is accepted, said state Rep. Ronnie Townsend, R-Anderson, who chaired the committee that oversaw the change.

The new bill, S. 356, was identical to H. 3128.

On June 5, 2003, just before last year’s session ended, the House passed S. 356 and sent it to the Senate.

Unlike Lourie’s House bill, S. 356 couldn’t be put into limbo.

Technically, it had been passed by the Senate, then amended by the House and was back in the Senate for a final vote.

THE FIRST SHOWDOWN

In the Senate, Democrat Hutto and Republican Ryberg became S. 356’s floor leaders. By mid-February, they had gathered about 20 votes for the bill, but it takes 24 votes to pass a bill in the 46-member Senate.

McConnell let it be known he would filibuster. It takes 28 votes to overcome a filibuster.

When McConnell filibusters, he has more power than other senators. That’s because — as Senate president pro tem and House Judiciary Committee chairman — McConnell controls the fate of many key bills.

He also assigns senators to Judiciary subcommittees, appointments that determine whether a senator will deal with major or minor bills. Thus, McConnell has power over the clout wielded by other senators.

Because of that power, senators are wary of opposing McConnell.

With McConnell’s opposition, S.356 should have died.

But the Public Safety Foundation, an umbrella lobbying group representing safety, medical, consumer, law enforcement and business groups, began a campaign to educate senators.

“They played an integral role in educating senators about seat belts over the next weeks,” Lourie said. “You could slowly see the numbers coming together.”

Also in February, The State newspaper began focusing attention on the rising traffic death toll.

Numerous residents, including Sumter pediatrician Durant, began contacting senators, asking them to vote to save lives.

“I received hundreds of e-mails,” said Ryberg. “The majority said, ‘Good job.’ But there were some that said it was too much government intrusion.”

The public attention caused senators such as state Sen. John Courson, R-Richland, a staunch libertarian, to change his mind.

On March 1, Courson declared he supported the bill.

By mid-March about 30 senators — about 15 Republicans and 15 Democrats — were for the bill.

After counting noses, Hutto and Ryberg decided to challenge McConnell. If they could get 28 votes to end his filibuster, they could get a vote on the bill.

But they had a problem.

While 30 senators said they would vote for the seat-belt bill, some declined to vote to sit McConnell down, ending his filibuster.

SECRET DEAL

On March 31, McConnell made a secret deal with at least two Republican leaders — Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, and Sen. Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence. They agreed that if, after two tries, the pro-seat belt forces failed to win the 28 votes needed to sit McConnell down, the Senate would agree to kill the bill.

It was an agreement almost certain to kill S. 356. In the world of the Senate, it often takes six or 10 tries to end a filibuster, said Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland.

To most pro-seat belt senators, it didn’t make sense to agree to stop a filibuster after only two tries.

Last week, Martin defended his deal on the floor of the Senate.

“I gave my word!” said Martin, explaining his promise to McConnell.

“Your word will cause people to die!” snapped Hutto.

Other senators were upset about the secret deal as well. They had not been part of it. They refused to go along and give up.

The result was a stalemate.

McConnell’s forces didn’t have 24 votes to kill the bill. Hutto and Ryberg didn’t have the 28 votes to end McConnell’s filibuster.

‘SIT ME DOWN’

Under the Senate rules, S. 356 was “first in the box” every day. On any given day, Hutto and Ryberg could bring the bill up and force McConnell to filibuster.

Time was crucial. As the Senate moves toward its June 3 adjournment, senators need time to handle vital bills, including the state’s $5 billion-a-year budget.

Tuesday, Hutto and Ryberg brought the seat-belt bill up. They reasoned McConnell eventually would give up because his filibuster was delaying essential Senate business.

But McConnell turned the tables. He was the one stalling the Senate by preventing a vote, but he accused pro-seat-belt senators of causing his filibuster.

After several hours Tuesday, McConnell — figuring he had enough votes — moved to kill the bill.

But he lost by five votes.

At that time, Senate rules required McConnell to give up the floor, since he made the motion.

When McConnell surrendered the floor, Hutto jumped up and was recognized by Sen. Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee, serving as the Senate’s temporary presiding officer. Peeler’s recognition of Hutto turned the tables. Now pro-seat-belt forces had control of the Senate debate. In essence, Hutto had the right to continue McConnell’s filibuster, except he began to beg senators to “sit me down.”

If 28 senators voted to sit Hutto down, the seat-belt bill could come up for a vote.

McConnell urged his supporters to keep Hutto on his feet.

As Tuesday wore on, votes were taken. McConnell succeeded by narrow margins in keeping Hutto standing.

Late Tuesday, the Senate agreed to adjourn with Hutto keeping the floor.

END OF THE ROAD

As the Senate opened Wednesday afternoon, a furor erupted when Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, a former seat-belt supporter, rose to speak on a matter of “personal interest.”

Thomas had risen after the Pledge of Allegiance, when important business is not taken up. Normally, the Senate would have proceeded to Hutto’s filibuster.

But Thomas made a surprise motion — to kill the seat-belt bill. It was the same motion McConnell had made the day before.

Some senators were outraged. In making his motion, Thomas used the Pledge of Allegiance’s spot on the agenda to deliver a surprise attack, they said.

“This is beneath the dignity of the Senate,” said Sen. Tom Moore, D-Aiken. “What have we come to?”

After angry senators took a recess to sort things out, Hutto — thinking he would win — agreed to give McConnell’s side a vote on whether to kill the seat-belt bill.

Hutto miscalculated. “I made a mistake,” he said later.

McConnell won, 23-21, aided by some senators who were convinced they needed to stop the stalemate.

Sen. West Hayes, R-York, had worked for the seat-belt bill. But, on Wednesday, he sided with his party and McConnell.

So too did 10 other pro-seat belt Republican senators.

Even though the pro-seat belt forces had the moral high ground, Hayes said McConnell was not going to give up and the Senate “had to move on.” Moreover, his side had lost some of the “moral high ground” because of the nature of S. 356, he said.

“The bill (S.356) never went through the full committee process and never got three readings in the Senate,” Hayes said.

Another factor was that Governor Sanford might veto it, he said.

(Sanford publicly had said he was neutral. But McConnell and other opponents of the bill claimed Sanford would veto it.)

Several Republican pro-seat-belt senators, however, stuck with their original position.

“I’m passionate about child safety and the safety of our public,” said Sen. Luke Rankin, R-Horry, who voted to keep the bill alive. “We missed a golden opportunity.”

‘WE’LL BE BACK’

McConnell’s use of his filibuster power to deny the majority a vote has prompted some calls for reform.

Some senators have started talking about lowering the number of votes needed to cut off a filibuster to 25 or 26 from 28, Courson said.

“Several of us aren’t thrilled by the filibuster,” said Courson, who voted for the seat-belt bill until the end. “This is the 21st century, and one should vote on policy — not personality.”

Others said the filibuster rule serves a purpose — to prevent the Senate from acting too hastily.

“The filibuster rule is a good rule. It brings about caution and stops bad legislation,” said Land, the Clarendon Democrat who fought for the seat-belt bill. “But, in this case, it stopped good legislation.”

Some senators say — no matter what the rules are — a seat-belt bill is doomed.

“As long as McConnell is alive and breathing, this bill will never pass,” said Sen. Arthur Ravenel, R-Charleston.

Others said the fight is only beginning.

Said Ryberg, “We’ll be back next year, and we’ll do it right.”