Banned from the legislature

by Tom Campbell, Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, June 22, 2017.

Few of us like it when others disagree with us. Fewer still like it when others protest our actions, but elected or appointed public officials have to recognize that disagreements and sometimes protests come with the territory. Often these protests are respectful and are dealt with responsibly, however the recent instance where 32 people were banned from entering our legislature is troubling on several fronts.

On May 30^th, more than 100 people assembled in the legislative building petitioning for better healthcare. 32 conducted a sit-down in front of legislative leaders’ offices. When the Capitol Police ordered the protestors to clear the hallways they refused, were arrested on charges of second-degree trespassing and taken to jail. As a condition for their release from jail, Wake County Magistrate Jeffrey Godwin banned them from again entering the legislative building.

Our first concern is whether any magistrate has (or should have) the authority to ban anyone from any public building. Magistrates are not generally lawyers and, while they have prescribed authorities we can’t find banning people from public buildings among them. Here are the qualifications to become a magistrate in North Carolina. First, magistrates have to be a resident of the county to which they are appointed. Secondly, the appointee must have one of the following: be a college graduate, have 8 years of experience as the clerk of superior court or have a two-year associate degree and 4 years of experience in a related field. Godwin appears to have exceeded his authority in this case.

Our second concern regards the constitutionality of the action. Article 1, Section 12 of the North Carolina Constitution states clearly, “The people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances….” There have been more than 1,000 arrests at the legislative building since 2013. In one instance where protestors were banned, a court overturned the edict as a violation of a citizen’s right to assemble and instruct their representatives.

That raises our third concern. While everyone has the right to assemble and even to protest, no one should have the right to be violent or disruptive so as to preclude public officials from the conduct of their duties. There is evidence that the protestors became very loud and blocked the entranceway to lawmakers’ offices. We can certainly understand the frustration that results when lawmakers or other elected officials refuse to meet with or hear people’s concerns, but we wonder whether the groups motives in this instance were to meet with lawmakers or to create a disturbance to the point of getting arrested.

Finally, we are concerned by the reactions of our legislators to this and similar protests. In recent decades we have witnessed a reduction in access to and a corresponding unwillingness by legislators to meet with groups petitioning them. Perhaps the disruptive noise and sit-ins might have been avoided if the representatives had been more responsive and willing to listen to and dialogue with them. We will never know because the protestors never had that opportunity.

This instance represents the state of our political climate today. This culture will only change when there is a willingness by all to be more responsive, respectful and responsible.