Gov. Mark Sanford needed more than 1,000 words Thursday to describe why he couldn't use just two words -- his name -- to ratify or veto a bill that gives police officers the authority to pull over drivers who aren't wearing seat belts.

Sanford's letter to Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer and members of the Senate followed his decision to let the controversial measure become law without his signature. The move was a surprise to many who thought the governor might veto the bill since he had previously criticized it for not being strong enough.

The new law, which goes into effect in six months, gives police the power to pull over drivers who fail to buckle up. The punishment is a $25 fine, though no points are added to a driver's record. The law also prevents citations from being admissible in court or turned over to insurance companies.

Today, police can't issue a ticket for not using seat belts unless the driver is stopped for another violation. Sanford wrote that this is the only law he can find in which police can witness a violation without being allowed to arrest someone.The heart of Sanford's argument is that the 1989 law mandating the use of seat belts is flawed. While he disapproves of that law, it is on the books.

"Were the question of whether or not to mandate seat-belt usage before me today," Sanford wrote, "I would veto the bill because I don't believe it is the role of government to protect people from themselves."

Outlawing tobacco and high-fat diets also would protect people from themselves, he wrote, adding that the founding fathers valued freedom above safety in such instances.

"[M]y view has always been that while we ought to have fewer laws, the laws in place should be enforced," he wrote.

The new seat-belt law simply applies an enforcement mechanism to the 1989 law, he wrote.

So he let it become law without his signature. He didn't sign it because he opposes it philosophically, and he didn't veto it because he felt police need it.

In the end, his efforts to clarify his position may leave some scratching their heads. "If you can't whip them, confuse them," said Francis Marion University political scientist Neil Thigpen. "It's Libertarianism to the nth degree. What he said is 'yes' but 'no.' "

After writing for the better part of five paragraphs about how government shouldn't interfere in people's lives, Sanford closed by writing that he didn't feel the law went far enough. Specifically, he said whether someone had worn a seat belt should be admissible in court cases.

"(If) there is a future review of this bill," he wrote, "I want to be clear in my commitment to veto any further changes unless they (include) admissibility in the courtroom for seat belt usage."

To summarize: No, yes and don't you dare, wrote the governor.

Thigpen said stepping aside and allowing a bill to become law rarely provokes such explanations. "This way he is a party to it, but he is not a party to it," Thigpen said. "That's Sanford for you."

Thigpen summed up the governor's message as "pure Sanfordism."

Lawmakers said this has been a tough issue for the governor. "I think he really did wrestle with it," said Sen. W. Greg Ryberg, R-Aiken, sponsor of the legislation. "He looks at it as a small step. It doesn't address the real problem."

Seat-belt advocacy groups celebrated. South Carolina is the 22nd state to pass such a law, according to the nonprofit National Safety Council. Twenty-seven other states have laws similar to South Carolina's existing one. New Hampshire, where the state motto is "Live free or die," is the only state that has no seat-belt law.

John Ulczycki, director of the organization's Transportation Safety Group, said only about 65 percent of South Carolina drivers buckle up, a number his organization expects to climb above 75 percent. He said studies show tougher laws are likely to save the lives of younger drivers, who are more afraid of getting a ticket than being killed in a wreck.

"There will be fewer funerals in South Carolina as a result of this law," he said.

ENFORCEMENT

New: Can stop any car with unbelted driver or passenger.

Old: Could stop cars only if someone younger than 18 was unbelted; adult drivers could be ticketed for failing to wear a seat belt only if they were stopped for another offense.

FINES

New: Maximum $25 per person, $50 per car. No court fees or other surcharges can be added; fines cannot be suspended.

Old: $25, and could be suspended.

VEHICLE SEARCHES

New: Police cannot search vehicles at stops made only for seat-belt violations unless they have probable cause.

Old: Searches were allowed during seat-belt stops.

RACIAL PROFILING

New: Police will have to gather data on race, gender and age at traffic stops even if a ticket is not issued.

Old: Information was gathered only if tickets were issued.

EXEMPTIONS

New: Delivery drivers, back-seat passengers with access only to lap belts and children younger than 6 who are being fed or under distress are no longer exempt from the law.

DRIVER RECORDS

New: Bars state from reporting seat belt offenses to insurance companies.

Associated Press

LETTER

Sanford's letter of transmittal to Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer outlining his reasons for allowing S. 1, the primary seat belt enforcement bill, to become law without his signature last night at midnight.

Sanford's letter

(Requires Adobe Acrobat, this is a PDF file)