{"id":10064,"date":"2008-09-30T10:50:27","date_gmt":"2008-09-30T15:50:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/?p=10064"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:19","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:19","slug":"arnold-curbs-lapdog-driving-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2008\/09\/30\/arnold-curbs-lapdog-driving-ban\/","title":{"rendered":"arnold curbs the lapdog driving ban"},"content":{"rendered":"

.. Paris and Jessica can keep doing it in their cars .. \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A<\/em> sensible law that would have banned driving with a pet in your lap was vetoed a few days ago by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has previously supported bans on texting while driving and driving with a cellphone in your hand.\u00a0 (AP report<\/a>, Sept. 28, 2008; and npr’s Morning Edition<\/em><\/a>, Sept. 29, 2008)\u00a0\u00a0 As f\/k\/a<\/em> has campaigned for laws prohibiting DWP<\/a> and DWT<\/a>, we perked up our ears and decided to sniff out the story behind Arnold’s veto. (And, as we’re also putting off writing a much more complicated and serious piece, this posting grew into a major production.)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> A primary source for this post is the article “Schwarzenegger vetoes bill forbidding drivers to hold pets<\/a>” (Sept. 28, 2008), in the Sunday Sacramento Bee<\/em>, which has the most thorough discussion we’ve been able to locate on the context and pros and cons of the Bill, AB 2233.\u00a0 The ban included a base fine of $35, which could have risen to $150 with state and county fees.\u00a0 According to the London Telegraph<\/em><\/a>,<\/p>\n

“The driving-with-animals bill was backed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Los Angeles but ridiculed as the ‘Paris Hilton bill’ by critics who described it as unwarranted interference by government.”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> The law in question has been derisively called the “Paris Hilton bill,” because many celebrities are among the folk who are so attached to their pets and so self-absorbed, they’re willing to endanger the animal and others on the road in order to keep them snuggled in their laps while maneuvering large, fast-moving objects down our highways.\u00a0\u00a0 Predictably, according to the Bee<\/em>, “Talk show host Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives ridiculed the lap-dog measure as excessive government” and a deprivation of some important liberty.\u00a0 Nonetheless, Gov. Schwarzenegger has given no indication that he opposed the law on its merits.\u00a0 Instead, the veto — among dozens more this signing period — was part of his current policy to sign only “highest priority” laws so long as the California Legislature fails to pass a much-delayed budget.<\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/em> The f\/k\/a<\/em> Gang has not<\/em> examined the 114 bills Arnold did sign on Saturday, to compare their urgency and importance to AB 2233 and the 94 other bills he vetoed.<\/p>\n

lightning flash\u2013
\nonly the dog\u2019s face
\nis innocent<\/p>\n

\u2026\u2026\u2026 by Kobayashi Issa<\/a>, translated by David G. Lanoue<\/p>\n

traffic jam
\nthe nodding dog
\nsprings to life<\/p>\n

.. by Matt Morden – Morden Haiku<\/a><\/em> (October 5, 2005) \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Granted, this bill would not have been my own highest legislative priority this year, but it is not frivolous, and once the work has been done to get it to the Governor’s desk, it should have been signed.\u00a0\u00a0 (If we only did the most important things in life, an awful lot of worthwhile efforts would never be made.) The bill’s author, Assemblyman Bill Maze<\/a>, who appears to be a conservative Republican from Visalia, has sponsored a lot of legislation<\/a>.\u00a0 He proposed AB 2233 after seeing a Tulare County woman driving with three dogs on her lap.<\/p>\n

Maze argues: “You’ve got a live animal that has a mind of its own . . . It can get tangled in the steering wheel or pinned between your knees. It can create a real hazard for yourself and everyone else.”<\/p>\n

And, the Bee<\/em> reports:<\/p>\n