House rejects bill that would have tightened handheld‑device restrictions while driving
February 11, 2025 | 2025 Legislative SD, South Dakota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
House Bill 11‑17, a proposal to tighten restrictions on the use of mobile electronic devices while driving, failed to receive a majority on Feb. 10 after extended floor debate.
Representative (first name not specified in transcript) Shorma, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure “tightens the functions that you can do with your hands while driving” and described personal experiences and constituent testimony about near‑misses caused by distracted motorists. “This bill will save lives,” he told the House.
The bill’s language, as discussed on the floor, would make holding a phone to one’s ear while driving illegal; in response to a question from Representative Manhart, Representative Shorma answered, “Yes. That makes it illegal.” Several members expressed concerns about enforcement and unintended consequences.
Representative Manhart described being pulled over in a state that enforces a similar law and urged a no vote, saying the enforcement experience made him question the law’s utility. Representative Ghosh and Representative Sharada raised concerns about the bill’s impact on farmers who rely on constant radio or cellular communication for equipment and logistics; Ghosh said modern farm equipment can operate at speeds above 25 mph, which could create conflicts with vehicle‑speed carve‑outs in the draft bill. Ghosh said the bill’s carve‑outs and language could make commonly used agricultural apps and one‑touch communications illegal.
Other members argued in favor. Representative Halverson said he believes the bill is “a good law” and cited instances of distracted drivers in school zones. Representative Weems noted hands‑free solutions are inexpensive and urged passage. In closing, Representative Shorma said he had adopted the behavior he asks of others and urged colleagues to support the bill.
A recorded vote failed: the clerk announced ayes 29, nays 39, excused 1; House Bill 11‑17 “having failed to receive the affirmative vote of the majority of members elect is hereby declared lost.” The transcript records a mix of safety arguments and practical‑use objections on rural roads and to agricultural operations, and several members urged caution because of tool‑and‑equipment compatibility and enforcement concerns.
Representative (first name not specified in transcript) Shorma, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure “tightens the functions that you can do with your hands while driving” and described personal experiences and constituent testimony about near‑misses caused by distracted motorists. “This bill will save lives,” he told the House.
The bill’s language, as discussed on the floor, would make holding a phone to one’s ear while driving illegal; in response to a question from Representative Manhart, Representative Shorma answered, “Yes. That makes it illegal.” Several members expressed concerns about enforcement and unintended consequences.
Representative Manhart described being pulled over in a state that enforces a similar law and urged a no vote, saying the enforcement experience made him question the law’s utility. Representative Ghosh and Representative Sharada raised concerns about the bill’s impact on farmers who rely on constant radio or cellular communication for equipment and logistics; Ghosh said modern farm equipment can operate at speeds above 25 mph, which could create conflicts with vehicle‑speed carve‑outs in the draft bill. Ghosh said the bill’s carve‑outs and language could make commonly used agricultural apps and one‑touch communications illegal.
Other members argued in favor. Representative Halverson said he believes the bill is “a good law” and cited instances of distracted drivers in school zones. Representative Weems noted hands‑free solutions are inexpensive and urged passage. In closing, Representative Shorma said he had adopted the behavior he asks of others and urged colleagues to support the bill.
A recorded vote failed: the clerk announced ayes 29, nays 39, excused 1; House Bill 11‑17 “having failed to receive the affirmative vote of the majority of members elect is hereby declared lost.” The transcript records a mix of safety arguments and practical‑use objections on rural roads and to agricultural operations, and several members urged caution because of tool‑and‑equipment compatibility and enforcement concerns.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting