The North Carolina House of Representatives approved legislation in a lopsided 67-48 vote Thursday that would shield drivers from civil liability if they collide with protesters.

Opponents say the legislation is unnecessary and may give drivers the false impression they can maliciously run over activists. One Democrat warned it would make the state the butt of jokes about being full of “dumb rednecks.”

But Republican proponents, who sent the measure to the state Senate by a veto-proof margin, say recent encounters between activists and drivers makes the reform both sensible and necessary.

Last year, people protesting the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott by a Charlotte police officer blocked roadways during at-times chaotic protest-related activities.

“These people are nuts to run in front of cars like they do … and say, ‘Me and my buddy here are going to stop this two-and-a-half-ton vehicle,’” GOP state Rep. Michael Speciale said in support of the bill, The News & Observer reports. “If somebody does bump somebody, why should they be held liable?”

Democratic state Rep. Henry Michaux, however, points out North Carolina is one of just four states with a pure contributory negligence rule, which means it's already impossible to collect a payout if the injured party is even 1 percent at fault for an accident.

Michaux, an African-American attorney, tells U.S. News the bill therefore would not give drivers additional protection from liability. Instead, he sees it as an unconstitutional invitation to mow down protesters or weave through parades, and he feels the motivation behind the bill may be racial.

“Who demonstrates more than people of color?” Michaux says. “It would give some folks the idea,” he says, to intentionally run over people “because you’ve got a group of black folks out here or a group of Latinos out here.”

The idea of immunizing drivers appears to have originated in North Dakota, where state Rep. Keith Kempenich proposed a similar bill in January after his mother-in-law allegedly was swarmed on a roadway by protesters opposed to construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. The measure was rejected in a 41-50 vote in February.

Tennessee lawmakers also took up the cause after a driver ran into protesters opposed to an action by President Donald Trump and wound up with "five or six" on his hood. Sponsors were tight-lipped amid negative press and the bill failed in committee in March.

The potential for bad press did not deter lawmakers in North Carolina, who passed the bill over a warning from Democratic Rep. Graig Meyer that it was inviting jokes about “those dumb rednecks” in the state.

The bill says drivers are not protected from liability if they are "willful or wanton" in plowing over pedestrians, but are protected if they are exercising "due care" and hit someone who is "participating in a protest or demonstration and blocking traffic in a public street or highway."

The measure includes language barring immunity if a driver strikes a pedestrian who has “a valid permit” allowing a protest in the public street "where the injury occurred."

Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's office did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the bill's sponsor, Republican state Rep. Justin Burr, or the state Senate's Republican majority leader, Harry Brown.

Republicans hold substantial majorities in both chambers of the state legislature and could make the bill law by overriding a potential gubernatorial veto. They overrode vetoes on two bills this week.

One Democrat voted for the protester-collision bill on Thursday, and three Republicans voted against it.

Michaux believes the legislation is likely to become law through an override vote and sees a lawsuit as the only way to keep it off the books. He looks to the 1969 Supreme Court ruling in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, which says it’s not always necessary to have a permit to march in the street.