With possible election protests looming, D.C. Council moves to restrict First Amendment rights
Demonstrators rally during a demonstration against the genocide in Palestine outside of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, March 2, 2024. New restrictions passed by the D.C. Council would limit the hours of protests in areas designated as residential zones. | Jose Luis Magana / AP

WASHINGTON—Despite efforts by local organizers, the D.C. Council passed a bill Tuesday that tightens restrictions on First Amendment activity, going against the district’s reputation for having among the more lenient guidelines when it comes to demonstrations.

The Residential Tranquility Emergency Amendment Act of 2024 – which adds new rules to a bill originally passed in 2010 – limits the right of demonstrators to protest outside residential buildings from 7 p.m. to 9 a.m. It passed by a 9-2 vote.

Since the beginning of the Trump era, D.C. has experienced an uptick in protests. Trump’s 2017 inauguration was met with thousands in the streets and hundreds of arrests, while January 6th, 2021 – more of a coup attempt than a protest – also figures prominently in the minds of local residents and politicians.

The type of protest activity that this bill aims to curb, however, are smaller, boutique affairs that target residential homes. Singling in on individuals is not new, with lawmakers bird-dogged everywhere from the halls of Congress to restaurants. Activists argue that protesting at a target’s home is intended to bring the surrounding community into the action; noise complaints from neighbors are part of the package.

Proposed by Ward 2 Councilperson Brooke Pinto, the bill also makes it illegal for protesters to launch anything onto a property in protest. Though Pinto’s office claimed that the emergency legislation was in response to the two-year-long regular protests outside of the Chinese ambassador’s residence in her ward, Charles Allen of Ward 6 asked why now was the time to file such emergency legislation, which would only last for 90 days, so near the end of the 2024 legislative session.

Map of residentially zoned areas in Washington, D.C. – Map by Yesim Sayin Taylor

There is a history of residential protests in D.C. In 2018, protesters successfully ousted right-wing talk show host Tucker Carlson from his home in the district by showing up unannounced in the evening with tambourines, a megaphone, and legal observers in tow. They were protesting Carlson’s racist “great replacement theory” he’d recently unveiled on his show, a conspiracy theory that inspired the Tree of Life Synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh just days before.

“Tucker Carlson moved out of D.C., which raised the social cost to some degree in being a high-profile racist,” said Dylan Petrohilos, an organizer with Smash Racism D.C. who participated in the protest.

“D.C. has always been an epicenter of organizing, and at the same time, a center for right-wing targets. There’s a long history of people protesting outside of people’s homes in D.C.: Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, and Donald Rumsfeld, to name a few.”

In 2021, protesters marched to the mayor’s residence to protest the exclusion of certain workers from the district’s pandemic budget. Organizers believe their action contributed to winning the allocation of $41 million to street vendors, laborers, and undocumented workers who were not offered pandemic aid.

Targets as of late have included those linked in one way or another to the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Many of these targets live in Ward 3, where the Israeli embassy and ambassador’s residence are located, and Ward 4.

While Matthew Frumin (Ward 3), was vocal in his support for the new protest restrictions, Janeese Lewis George (Ward 4) had given birth the day before the vote and was not present. Her ward includes the home of U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller, who has been visited by protesters several times since Oct. 7, 2023, about his constant defense of U.S. arms shipments to the Israeli military.

A self-described socialist, Lewis George’s ward took a more hands-off approach to recent protests. The bill’s rushed nature, combined with her absence, presented an advantage for its proponents.

Also absent from consideration was councilmember Vincent Gray of Ward 7, who declined to participate in legislative proceedings just days before the vote due to a recent dementia diagnosis.

People’s World reached out to several council members for comment but had not received any responses by the time of publication.

The “emergency” designation given to the amendment also meant it was rushed through the usual legislative process. Local progressive organizers did not even hear about the proposed bill until last Thursday when a staffer with councilperson at-large Kenyan McDuffie reached out to Claudia Jones School organizer Dante O’Hara with the news, who was concerned about the broad implications of the bill.

No public input was allowed, so organizers had to work fast. O’Hara worked the phones, pulling in contacts from across the district who had worked with the council before, legal organizations, and even activists who had previously protested in front of homes. The National Lawyers Guild sent an open letter of concern, and Defending Rights and Dissent launched a petition online, while the ACLU of D.C. directly engaged councilmembers.

“We showed up on Monday morning and had an advocacy day, where we lobbied office-to-office,” O’Hara told People’s World. “On the day of the vote, we held a small rally in front of the Wilson Building and then headed inside to bird-dog elected officials. We also hosted call-ins and letter-writing campaigns.”

The initial bill proposed to ban all amplified sound at all times from “residential districts,” a designation that covers the majority of Washington, D.C.’s geography. However, due to the quick response from organizers, they were able to negotiate a reduction of allowable hours as opposed to a total ban.

“Even though the bill has passed, we’re not giving up,” O’Hara said. “It’s not going to stop people from engaging in demonstrations, and we’re gearing up to fight whatever permanent legislation is proposed after these 90 days have passed.”

The backdrop for this emergency bill, of course, is the Nov. 5 elections and the possibility of chaos and protest that could be sparked by Donald Trump – whether he wins or loses. The restrictions of the amendment will be in effect through Jan. 27, 2025, a calendar week after the next president of the United States is due to be sworn into office.

Petrohilos believes that the recent restrictions are meant to “squash and raise the cost of dissent.” While it may be presented by lawmakers as an effort to prioritize residents’ peace and quiet, organizers are concerned it could be laying the groundwork for more authoritarian anti-protest measures in the future.


CONTRIBUTOR

Taryn Fivek
Taryn Fivek

Taryn Fivek is a reporter for People's World in New York.

Comments

comments