Proposed Protest Ordinance Struck Down in 5-2 Council Vote

Last night, the City Council struck down a proposal from the City Attorney and Police Department to prohibit items that could be used as weapons during protests, which would have prevented protesters from using face coverings.

In a 5 to 2 vote on Tuesday afternoon, most of the Council shared that the proposed changes to a city protest ordinance would infringe on the constitutional rights of protesters while also citing potential legal challenges it could bring if implemented.

“I appreciate the fact that you’re trying to protect our officers and our residents,” Councilmember Sean Mill told Police Chief Larry Gonzalez. “But I just see this as government overreach, and it’s too broad in general.”

In their presentation to the Council, Gonzalez and acting City Attorney Jack Liu said the ordinance updates align with similar policies adopted by the University of California and California State University to curb violent campus protests.

Gonzalez says the regulation would have only targeted disruptive and violent groups and given officers a necessary tool to ensure demonstrations are safe. He added that he doesn’t consider supporters of Black Lives Matter or former President Donald Trump to be bad actors.

“With election season being a couple weeks away, we’re concerned about protests that are going on across the country and in our city,” said Gonzalez. “We allow people to safely exercise their First Amendment right. This type of ordinance would just assist us in those worst case scenarios.”

Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes shared Mill’s concerns and questioned the potential discretionary enforcement of the ordinance.

“That is a concern of mine, that we are giving way too much power to our officers,” she said. “It allows for certain groups to be targeted without true reason or cause if they are peacefully assembling…And I think officers already have a great deal of discretion and protection to act when they see someone violating the law.”

Cervantes also believes people who wear masks for medical and religious reasons shouldn’t be wrongfully targeted for exercising their right to protest. She says 87 people opposed the ordinance and read some of those public comment letters aloud from the dais.

Resident Ehaab Zubi told the Council that he considers the proposed ordinance an attempt by the city to curtail peaceful protests against Israel-Hamas war by outlawing protesters’ right to protect themselves and protect their privacy.

“It is impractical to assume that law enforcement will take the time to confirm that a person is wearing a mask that may cover their face for religious beliefs, practices… or to verify that their signs meet the ridiculous provisions of the ordinance before taking action to arrest or detain them,” he said.

David Loy with the First Amendment Coalition says cities can impose content-neutral, generally applicable restrictions on protest items. But he argues enforcement must be even-handed.

“If there’s a religious exemption written into an ordinance that’s legitimate or a public health exception that someone needs to wear a mask because they’re immunocompromised, that has to be respected,” he said.

At least one municipality in the U.S. has adopted a policy to prohibit protesters from wearing masks or other face coverings at protests except for religious and medical reasons. In August, Nassau County in New York adopted a local law that was recently upheld by a federal court.