Constitutional Law
Jun. 19, 2002
Canvassing Doesn't Require Permit, Court Says
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that local governments may not require religious, political and other noncommercial groups to register and obtain a permit before canvassing door to door.
The justices' 8-1 decision gives a major boost to the Jehovah's Witnesses and others who rely on door-to-door contacts. The decision strikes down an Ohio permit ordinance and similar laws in several communities around the country. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 2002 DJDAR 6690 (June 17, 2002).
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said that ordinances that extend to noncommercial canvassers promoting various causes are "overbroad [and] offensive - not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society."
These laws require citizens, "in the context of everyday public discourse," to first inform the government of their desire to speak "and then obtain a permit to do so," Stevens added.
"[They] would seem to extend to residents casually soliciting the votes of neighbors, or ringing doorbells to enlist support for employing a more efficient garbage collector," he wrote.
The decision, which reversed the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stems from a suit brought by the Jehovah's Witnesses against the small village of Stratton, Ohio. At issue was an ordinance that makes it a misdemeanor for "canvassers, solicitors, peddlers and hawkers" to fail to register with the mayor and display their permit - which includes their name - to anyone who requests it.
The ordinance also allows residents to post "No Solicitation" signs to ward off both commercial and noncommercial canvassers, including Camp Fire Girls, Christmas carolers and Halloween trick-or-treaters.
Stevens noted that, for more than 50 years, the court has struck down restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering and that many of those restrictions had been aimed at the Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not seek contributions but accept donations.
"It is more than historical accident that most of these cases involved First Amendment challenges brought by Jehovah's Witnesses, because door-to-door canvassing is mandated by their religion," he added.
The court has allowed communities to protect residents from fraudulent canvassers who solicit funds by requiring them to register, Stevens said, but First Amendment concerns are implicated by noncommercial canvassers.
In this case, the ordinance requires canvassers "to surrender their anonymity," which is important because it covers "unpopular causes unrelated to commercial transactions or to any special interest in protecting the electoral process."
Such laws may deter some citizens who would "prefer silence to speech licensed by a petty official," he added.
What's more, these ordinances effectively ban "a significant amount of spontaneous speech," Stevens said.
Under the Stratton law, "even a spontaneous decision to go across the street and urge a neighbor to vote against the mayor could not lawfully be implemented without first obtaining the mayor's permission," he added.
Finally, the Stratton ordinance is not required to serve the village's interest in preserving residents' privacy and preventing crime, Stevens said.
The provision allowing the posting of a "No Solicitation" sign "provides ample protection for the unwilling listener," he said.
"[And] it seems unlikely that the absence of a permit would preclude criminals from knocking on doors and engaging in conversations not covered by the ordinance," such as asking directions or permission to use the phone, Stevens said.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented.
"[The majority] renders local governments largely impotent to address the very real safety threat that canvassers pose," Rehnquist wrote.
He added that the decision "may actually result in less of the door-to-door communication that it seeks to protect."
As he did during oral argument, Rehnquist said the dangers were illustrated by the recent murder of a married couple, Dartmouth University professors, by two teen-agers who "went door-to-door intent on stealing access numbers to bank debit cards and then killing their owners."
And because the ordinance makes it a crime to violate "No Solicitation" signs posted by homeowners, he concluded, "more and more residents may decide to place these signs in their yards and cut off door-to-door communication altogether."
David Pike
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com