The Constitution of the United States says we all have the right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
In rural Mullica Township, that traditionally has meant assembling at the town dump. The township's waste-transfer station is the equivalent of an old-time general store, or a modern-day Starbucks: It's where Mullica's voters go to talk and complain; it's where elected officials go to shake hands and campaign. Lately, with the Republicans in power, most of the petitioning for a redress of grievances is being done by Democrat-leaning folks criticizing the Republicans on Township Council.
Which makes it all rather unseemly that the Republicans on council are now making a second attempt to pass an ordinance that would regulate gatherings at the waste-transfer station.
The ordinance would require people or groups wanting to gather on public property in the township to apply for a permit 30 days prior to the gathering and provide proof of liability insurance 10 days before the event. Any permit could be denied "at the discretion of the township."
This alone is unacceptable. Courts have made it clear that people have a right to gather spontaneously - without applying for a permit 30 days earlier. And those who can't afford insurance have the same rights as those who can.
The first proposal, which was tabled in May after Democrats on council and others raised constitutional questions, applied to any meeting. The current version has been changed to exclude gatherings of political discourse. But this ordinance is still a bad idea and, if you ask us, exactly what its opponents say it is - an attempt to hinder the political opposition.
Consider: The revised ordinance also says that anyone who wants to campaign, rally or hold a vigil at the entrance of the waste-transfer station must wear a brightly colored safety vest.
The reason? Public safety. But if public safety were really the goal, Mullica would have an ordinance requiring anyone going to the waste transfer station, where residents routinely drop off trash, bulk waste and leaves, to wear a brightly colored vest. But it doesn't. Only people engaged in political discourse would have to wear vests under the measure.
These types of ordinances have to be crafted carefully to survive a court challenge. Most aren't - and most don't. And this one - by specifically targeting a traditional gathering place for political discourse - seems particularly unlikely to stand.
11 comments:
The majority party seems to be working for themselves and the insurance company instead of the community.
This is all Cathy Chasey's doing.
Even after the Press Editorial raises concerns they'll still push it through not only out of spite and stupidity but also because Chasey and her supporters have much more deeper pockets in campaign funding.They intend to do a lot of campaigning through mailings while the Dems who dont have much funding will lose their main info network at the transfer station .
I'm really glad that the Press's editors saw Cathy Chasey's real motives for this revised Ordinance.
She would like nothing better than to stop the flow of information to the people.
The politicans will be able to campaign at the "Dump"if they wear their vests but the rest of the public will be stuck with all these harsh restrictions on the use of our public land. Chasey sacrificed the people of this town to block the competition and it backfired in her face.
The reason why Chasey insisted that everyone need to apply for a permit, rather than just large groups of people, which arguably might have made some sense, was so that opponents campaigning at the dump could be denied the right to campaign there. That plan fell through, leaving everyone else in town burdened by a dumb law that puts them in financial jeopardy if they get injured on township property without having explicit authorization beforehand.
Cathy, its time for you to go!
So let me get this straight. If I stand outside the dump and hand out campaign literature, I have to wear a brightly-colored vest but if I'm handing out rec sign-up sheets or distributing something else that is nonpolitical, I don't. This sounds like selective enforcement to me and points to the real underlying reason for the law, to restrict political campaigning rather than having any real concerns for public safety.
This new ordinance is going to be very difficult to enforce and probably won't be, except on a selective, we-don't-like-you basis or later, if you happen to get injured on township property and the insurance company is looking for a way out not to pay.
I wonder how much campaign money is given to the Republican Party from Mullica's insurance agent.
Mullica is a public community and our lawmakers should stop trying to make it into some sort of private association where there are a lot of restrictions on what the residents can do.
Mullica's governing body as they call themselves need to look into Our Constitution . I quess they didn't hear about our Amendment of Freedom of Speech and the Right to Assemble . I truely wonder how many residents of Mullica would want to test this new found ordinance set by our so called Governing Body of Mullica.
Post a Comment