On October 10, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that stand-alone stores open to the public must permit petitioning outside the store, even if the place where petitioning is being carried out is private property. Glovsky v Roche Brothers Supermarkets, SJC-11434. The decision isn’t posted yet on the Court’s web page, but when it is, a link will be inserted here.
The plaintiff had been petitioning for himself in 2012 in front of a grocery store. He lost in the trial court but now the Supreme Court has reversed the lower court. Back in 1983, the Massachusetts Supreme Court had ruled that shopping centers must permit petitioning, and that opinion, Batchelder v Allied Stores, has now been expanded. See this story.
Not often I find myself agreeing with the Courts, but this was a correct decision by this Court in my opinion.
Still, it is too bad 3rd parties have to continue petitioning election after election. I like Florida’s law which gives 3rd parties and Independents the right to pay a filing fee or petition if the fee is too high.
I find it interesting that you have contemporaneous articles about one court saying that a public TV network CAN discriminate, and another that says that private property can be used for political purposes against the owner’s will. Both cases demonstrate that we cannot depend on the courts to protect our rights.
“Both cases demonstrate that we cannot depend on the courts to protect our rights.”
Tis true, Chris Cole. But occasionally, like the ole axiom of “a stopped clock is right twice a day,” every now and then, the Courts will make a good ruling.