HARRISBURG — A single sentence within a legislative bill that would allow Pennsylvania to ban handheld cellphone use by drivers — a ban long sought by lawmakers — has generated pushback from transparency advocates.
Every adjoining state already has enacted such a ban. In Pennsylvania, the concept has been discussed for years. The latest bill passed the Senate last year in a 37-11 vote and the House on April 9 in a 124-77 vote.
Before the final House vote, though, new language was added calling for police to collect data during traffic stops on the driver’s perceived race and ethnicity, age and gender, among other things. The new language included a sentence that says the collected data “shall not be accessible” under the state Right-to-Know Law.
“We support everything about the bill except for one sentence,” Melissa Melewsky, an attorney with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said. The intent of the bill is public safety, and PNA supports that goal, she said. But, she said, the sentence “is a problem for Pennsylvania because it results in less access, and ultimately, less accountability.”
Supporters pointed out the new language lets police give the collected data to a third party for an “annual analysis and report,” and the report will immediately become public. The sentence before the one that blocks Right-to-Know access, in fact, says, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit data collected under this section from being shared with organizations that compile national data statistics.”
The section made little sense to Craig Staudenmaier, an attorney who is viewed as an authority on the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law and government transparency.
“If it is a public record, it is public. You can’t give it to some people and not to others,” Mr. Staudenmaier said. “That is what is confusing to me. They are willing to give it to certain groups.”
Another attorney with expertise in Right-to-Know Law cases, Zachary Gordon, also pointed to the clash between the sentences.
The one blocking RTK access “likely will be used to preclude the public from accessing the aggregate data about traffic stops” but the previous one allows police departments to voluntarily share the data with statistics organizations, he said.
“Public understanding of traffic stops would be enhanced by allowing the public to obtain the same data the bill permits police departments to share with third-party organizations,” Mr. Gordon said.
The Senate must approve of the changes made in the House. The Senate is not back in session until April 29.
Legislative attempts to take phones out of the drivers’ hands date back to at least 2011. The chief proponent in recent years has been Sen. Rosemary Brown, R-Monroe. She is the prime sponsor of the current bill and has cited an AAA traffic safety culture index finding that 87.5% of drivers “believe that distracted driving has outpaced all other traffic-related issues as a growing safety concern.”
Multiple entities with a strong voice in Harrisburg, including police organizations, have been part of the conversation. In the past, Rep. Donna Bullock, a Philadelphia Democrat and chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus, expressed concerns about traffic stops impacting people of color.
Ms. Bullock voted in favor of the changed bill earlier this month.
This week, she said “a lot of work” went into the latest bill. If adopted, she said, it could be a “first step” toward future improvements in driver safety laws.
Asked about transparency concerns, she said the data is “still going to be aggregated, analyzed and made publicly available” via the reports. “It is a win for the public,” she said.
The amendment that changed the language came from Rep. Ed Neilson, D-Philadelphia and chairman of the House Transportation Committee. He said the Right-to-Know Law blocking language was necessary to address concerns of several stakeholders, including Pennsylvania State Police.
One concern is that Right-to-Know access will allow dissemination of portions of data, rather than the full picture, Mr. Neilson said. Piecemeal publication could be misleading, he said.
Another Democrat, Rep. Mark Rozzi of Berks County, said, “Not everybody got exactly what we wanted in the bill, but overall, it’s a good bill.”
Ford Turner: fturner@post-gazette.com
First Published: April 16, 2024, 7:42 p.m.
Updated: April 18, 2024, 4:24 p.m.
