As had been previously reported here, last month the 1st circuit ruled against a plaintiff-candidate in Massachusetts who had been arrested for petitioning for himself on an interior post office sidewalk. The 1st circuit had ruled last month that the postal regulation against “campaigning” on interior post office sidewalks is constitutional. The 1st circuit had also equated “campaigning” with petitioning.
On April 3, the plaintiff asked for a rehearing. His brief points out that courts are not supposed to think up rationales for a restriction on free speech that the government itself had not presented as a rationale for that restriction. The 1st circuit decision had talked extensively about the post office’ history of involvement with partisan politics, in the years before 1970. Then the 1st circuit had assumed that since the post office since 1970 has tried to avoid any appearance of partisanship, therefore it is necessary to have a ban on “campaigning” on its interior sidewalks. The federal government’s briefs defending the regulation had never used that rationale for the regulation.
I am not sure how this flies. Petitioning is an explicit First Amendment right.
I can see needing to get a permit, maybe some rules about not harassing people — I often try to make quick stops to the post office — but a total ban would seem to have 1st Amendment problems.
“I can see needing to get a permit, maybe some rules about not harassing people — I often try to make quick stops to the post office — but a total ban would seem to have 1st Amendment problems.”
Having to get a permit implies that petitioning is not a right but rather a priviledge. One should not have to get anyone’s permission to excercise a right.
“Harrassing” people is so open to interpetation that there is great room for abusing the rights of a peaceful petitioner. For instance, a person could be standing 15 feet away from the door and saying, “Excuse me sir/mam, could you take a few moments to sign this petition to ____________ (fill in whatever the petition is)?” The person passing by may not like the petition or just may be in a bad mood and not like anyone talking to them. They could then complain that the petiti8oner “harrassed” them and the petitioner gets kicked out of the location, which means that the petitioner gets less signatures that day. If the petition is to put a candidate or issue on the ballot this is something that could jepordize the petition from making it on the ballot. So not only have the rights of the petition circulator been violated, but also the rights of the candidate(s) or issue proponent, as well as the rights of the voters who wanted the candidate(s) or issue to appear on the ballot, as well as the rights of anyone who came to that Post Office later in the day who may have wanted to sign that petition.
The rules should be simple. Don’t block the door and make an effort to not be rude to people. The rules should be interpeted to favor the petitioner. Most petition circulators have enough common sense to know to not block the door and not be rude to people. When there is a disturbance it is usually caused by an irrate person walking by who was asked to sign a petition who did not like the petition and is looking for a way to block people from signing it, or who simply didn’t like the fact that anyone talked to them.