0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
11K vues3 pages
Letter urging Montgomery mayor Todd Strange to veto an ordinance recently passed by the city council that will allow panhandlers in the city to be jailed.
Letter urging Montgomery mayor Todd Strange to veto an ordinance recently passed by the city council that will allow panhandlers in the city to be jailed.
Letter urging Montgomery mayor Todd Strange to veto an ordinance recently passed by the city council that will allow panhandlers in the city to be jailed.
SPLC @ ‘Southern Poverty Law Center ‘eating Toke
Saunt an ae
ere A108
July 10, 2019)
Mayor Todd Strange
City Hall, Room 206
103 North Perry Steet
Montgomery, AL 36104
‘The Souther Poverty Law Center (SPLC) writes to express our concem about Ordinance
'No. 24-2019, entitled “An Ordinance Prohibiting Panhandling in the City of Montgomery.” We
urge the Mayor to veto the Ordinance, because it both unfairly punishes people who ae living in
Poverty and violates the First Amendment. Ifthe Mayor does not veto the Ordinaace (and the City
Council does not estind it), the SPLC wil likely file a lawsuit against the City for violating the
‘constitutional rights of its most vulnerable and needy citizens.
On July 2,2019, the Montgomery City Council passed an ordinance that subjects homeless
people to jail time for soliciting money in any public place. During City Council discussions of |
the Ordinance, City Council members represented that the City's services for homeless people are
adequate and that those who are soliciting money “don't want access to city services that could
help them get on their feet,” and are simply “seeking to make money to feed adcictions."! These
statements reinforce unfounded stereotypes about homelessness, addiction, and mental illness
‘And the Ordinance’s riminalization of poverty will serve to exacerbate, rather than alleviate, the
challenges that Montgomery's homeless population faces. Rather than jailing people whose dire
circumstances have led them to ask fr financial assistance on public streets, the City should invest
in additional services to support people facing housing instability, mental illness, and addiction.
‘Notonly isthe Ordinance bad public policy, butt is blatantly unconstitutional. The federal
courts have long held that solicitation is protected speech under the First Amendment? More
recently in Reed v. Town of Gilber, the Supreme Court made clear that when the government
prohibits speech based on its content, these prohibitions are subject to strict judic al scrutiny the
® Brian Edwards, Momgomery Romps Up Penalties for Panhandle, Hopes to DuterFreguentRlebreaters,
Montgomery Adviser uly 2, 2019), avallabe at
tas montzomen advertiser cm/s nes 2019107 02/nonttoner-andsp Deals shane
2 Smith» Cty of Fort Lauderdale, Fla, 17 F394, 986 (10h Ci. 1998) (Like oterchrkabe soliton,
beaing i spech ented to Fist Ameadineat protection”)
1Couns most exacting standard Since Reed, cours across the country have consistently struck
dow las lke the Ordinance hee as unconstitutional, content-based speech restitions. Federal
courts have found panhandling prohibitions to be unconstitutional in New York, Nevada,
Michigan Virginia, Colorado, Massachusets, and Floria, among others. Inded, the Seventh
Circuit stuck down a municipal panhandling ordinance with language almost ideacal tothe
ordinance that the City Council just passed. There sil doubt that federal cout would ikewise
conclude that Montgomery's proposed ordinance is unconstitutional under the Fist Amendment
‘Montgomery's ordinance banning in-person solicitations is short-sighted, unconstitutional,
and counter-productive. The SPLC requests thatthe Mayor veto this unconstitutional ordinance
or, in the alternative, thatthe City Council rescind it. We ae happy to discuss ou concems about
the Ordinance with the relevant decision-makers, and we believe that this discussion could serve
15 a starting point to engage in even broader conversations about how we can ensure that
Montgomery is treating its homeless population in a fair and constitutional manner. If the
Ordinance is enacted, however, the SPLC will likely flea lawsuit challenging theunconstitutional
Ordinance and will seek attorney's fees to the extent authorized by law, Thank you for your
consideration
Sincerely,
Meer —
Micah West
Senior Staff Attorney
sigah west@spleenter ong
Neil Sawhney
Staff Attomey
neil sawhney@spleenter org
Clara Potter
Law Fellow.
clara porer@spleenter.or
Southern Poverty Law Center
(634) 956-8205
ce; Montgomery City Attomey Kim Fehl
9 peed» Town of Gilber, Ari, 138. CX 2218, 228 (2015),
See. oper. New York City Police Dept, 999 F24 689,704 24 Ce 1983); ACLU, Lar Fog, 66 F-34784,
792 6th Cir, 2006}; Sper. Sohuete, 726 F 34 867,875 (th Cit. 2013); Reyna. Middleton 799 F322, 228,
(4th Cir. 2013}; MeLanghinv. Ci of Lowell 14 F.Supp. 34 177,189 (D. Mas. 203); Brome v. City of Grand
Junction, 136 F.Supp. 381276, 289 (D. Col. 2013}; Homeless Helping Homeless. Inc. Cip2f Tampa, Fla, No-
BISCVL1219-T-23AAS, 2016 Wh 4162882 (M.D. Fa, Aug 5, 2016)
* Norton Cty of Spring IL, 806 F.34 41 (8h Ct. 2018) (aking down ordinance probing
for immesinedovation of money").
i requess
2Montgomery City Councilmembers Charles W. Jinright (President and District 9). Tracy
Larkin (President Pro Tem and District 3), Richard N. Bollinger (District 1), Brantley W.
Lyons (District 2), Audrey Graham (District 4), William A. Green, Jr. District 5), Fred
F. Bell District 6), Arch M. Lee (District 7), Glen O. Prt, J. (District 8)