Civil Disobedience

I have always been as straight and law abiding as a person can be.  But I will be participating in an act of Civil Disobedience next week.  I will be going to my State Capitol to join the Solidarity Singers in the civilly disobedient act of (gasp!) singing Christmas Carols in front of the State Capitol without a permit.  The singing will occur outside on the public sidewalk outside the Capitol on the Capitol grounds.  The governor has declared that this is an activity that requires a permit.  We will not have a permit,  Organizers are anticipating that there may be arrests.  The ACLU will be sending legal observers.

I never in my life would have expected I'd be doing anything like this.  But I feel very strongly about it.  I believe that the government belongs to the People, not to the politicians currently holding various elected offices.  I believe that the People have a right to go to our statehouse and speak (or sing).  So I will be doing that.

If I happen to get arrested, what should I expect? I can't imagine they intend to hold dozens of Christmas Carolers in jail over the weekend awaiting arraignment on charges of singing Christmas Carols without a permit. I don't want to get charged with resisting arrest,  What do I need to do to make sure I don't break any other laws besides just assembling in too large of a group without a permit?  Do I need to have bail money on me when I get arrested (I assume they won't take a check)?  Anything else I need to know in advance?

LegalSecy:

Do I need to have bail money on me when I get arrested (I assume they won't take a check)?

I suggest having the number of someone you can call to post bail for you. And the number of an attorney to call once you get out if you wish to mount any defense to whatever charges are brought against you. Also, as I recall you are a state employee. If so, an arrest and conviction on whatever charges there are might cost you your job. So you might also want to prepared for that possibility.

Well, its hard to tell whether that would affect my employment,  I am a State employee.

My State has a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a record of arrest or conviction unless a conviction is "substantially related" to the job the person is or would be doing.  For example,  a person convicted of child abuse could be fired from a job as a kindergarten teacher.  And a person convicted of bank robbery could be denied a job as a bank teller.  But a person convicted of child abuse probably couldn't be fired from a job as a bank teller on the basis of that conviction.

My job is in a financial area (I draft and negotiate contracts for services by private sector vendors).  I do need to maintain a squeaky-clean credit report and not owe any unpaid taxes, as personal financial problems or tax liabilities can be a reason for losing my job - I guess the State considers that an unacceptable risk. 

But I don't believe that a conviction for illegal assembly at the Capitol would be considered "substantially related."  On the other hand, our legislature did pass a new law making it possible to fire State employees who engage in strikes or work stoppages  (mostly I chuckled at the provision of that law that made it a firable offense for State employees to "incite mass retirements" of other State employees - I suppose that would make it illegal for me to write an op-ed piece for the local newspaper saying "if you are a public employee who is eligible to retire, do it now").  Although that too is troublesome to me w.r.t the First Amendment, presumably that law wouldn't apply since I will be on vacation when this happens, although there have been some recent new rules that make it illegal for State employees to do certain things while they are "in pay status" which conceivably could include paid vacation time (no case law on that yet; its a new law).  If that is an issue, I could take the day without pay so as not to be "in pay status" - although it also somewhat concerns me that the State believes it can make "special rules" about what I may and may not do while I am on vacation by virtue of the fact that I am a State employee. (This rule was made about circulating recall petitions - State employees cannot circulate petitions to recall elected officials on state property while they are "in pay status" although non-State employees may do so.  I believe one or more of the now decertified Unions may be planning on challenging this in court with respect to State employees who are on vacation, but I do not intend to be a test case for that law; i.e., I will not have any recall petitions on me while I am singing Christmas Carols at the State Capitol.)

LegalSecy:

But I don't believe that a conviction for illegal assembly at the Capitol would be considered "substantially related." 

I don't practice in your state and cannot say if it would substantially related. I can think of arguments the state might offer to show that it is. The current state administration would likely not take kindly to state employees flouting the new rules for demonstrations on the capitol and may be willing to fire you and let you litigate to get your job back. Maybe not. In any event, my suggestion to you would be to consult an employment law attorney in your state to see what kind of risk you might run in doing this. My purpose here is not to dissuade you from your protest, but to at least fully consider what might happen so you are prepared.

LegalSecy:

But I don't believe that a conviction for illegal assembly at the Capitol would be considered "substantially related." 

No, but you might find that, somewhere down the line, your performance gets scrutinized more rigorously and your management finds reasons to ding you on review, and ultimately finds an "unrelated" way to kick you out.

I wouldn't want to dissuade you either.

But biting the hand that feeds you is certainly a consideration.

If you got a stiff fine and didn't pay it, then you will have handed your state employer that "financial argument" that could lead to your termination.

In my state, you probably would be cited and released on your own recognizance (sp?). Jail would be pretty unlikely. But, there usually is a fine associated with these kinds of citations and it is often pretty steep ($250+).

At least check out any relevent statutes a priori so that you know what you might be up against.

Depends on if somebody in law enforcement needs to make a name for him/her self?

I do want to thank everybody.  You've given me a lot to think about.

This will not be happening until next week, so I still have time to think about it.  But I hope and pray that I won't chicken out before then.

My state has been ripped apart in the past year by political turmoil.  I was never a radical anything.  In fact the most radical thing I ever did before this year was vote.  I hadn't ever belonged to a political party.  I always figured that there were people who cared more than I did who would take care of any political stuff that needed to be done.

What this past year has taught me is that if you don't get involved, other people may make political decisions that you don't agree with, and you won't have a leg to stand on to complain about it because you weren't there putting in the work to make sure that your own viewpoint was represented. Voting alone isn't enough.

It feels like there are some basic civil libeties that are under attack right now in my state.  I love my country.  My favorite document in the whole world is the U.S. Declaration of Independence.  It says,

"Governments are instituted among Men [and now, women], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Maybe I take that too seriously.  But many people have laid down their lives for it ... so it seems like small potatoes for a State employee living a relatively comfortable life in an obscure northern state to (possibly) jeopardize  her pretty good job and maybe a few hundred dollars fine for the same.  Thats how strongly I feel about it.  I am not a violent or confrontational person.  I believe our Constitution gave us the means of "continuous revolution" by guaranteeing certain rights to the People - and those include freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.  It may seem like a paltry action to stand in front of the Capitol singing Christmas Carols without a permit - but to me I see it as defending a fundamental American right ... for the People to be able to bring any message they want to the Capitol without first asking permission of the existing government.

Maybe the events of my state this past year are turning me into a radical.  If that is what a radical is, I will accept the label.  I am a fiercely radical American and I can no longer sit back and hope that "somebody else" will defend the fundamental rights of Americans.  I have said many times during the past year that I never would have chosen to be in the midst of the political battles my State is going through.  But I am, and I feel "drafted by circumstances" to defend the rights of speech and assembly in my state. 

Which is what I believe I will be doing in this act of civil disobedience.

LegalSecy:

It may seem like a paltry action to stand in front of the Capitol singing Christmas Carols without a permit - but to me I see it as defending a fundamental American right ... for the People to be able to bring any message they want to the Capitol without first asking permission of the existing government.

You realize that singing Christmas carols itself complicates matters, don't you? Having a group of people standing in front of the capital building steps signing essentially religious music creates a problem for the government because of another first amendment guarantee: freedom of religion. Others that wish to transact business there but who are of faiths other than Christians may be offended by the music and what they see as the government's promotion of it by permitting a group to sing those songs every day on its property. If I were the protest group's lawyer, I would advise staying clear of music that has a religious nature because it will make things even more messy.

That is a good point ... although our current governor may not be bothered by that,  He created yet another (unnecessary, in my opinion) controversy a few weeks ago when he insisted for the first time in decades that the large decorated fir tree sitting in the Capitol rotunda for the season is absolutely NOT a holiday tree; it is a Christmas tree.  Some people were quite pleased; others have expressed an intent to sue.  But for the time being, this year our State Capiyol is officially celebrating Christmas, not generic holidays.

To complicate things even more, I'm Jewish.  My husband is Lutheran, so we celebrate both Jewish and Christian holidays in our home.  I happen to like Christmas carols.  :-)  Although I personally have absolutely no  problem with helping Christians celebrate their holidays even though they may not be "my" holidays, I agree that sticking to less overtly religious tunes for this event would be a good idea.

I went.  I sang.  Nobody got arrested.  The Governor appears to be noticing that it is a good idea to listen to the objections of the People.  That is a Good Thing,.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/revisions-in-capitol-access-plan-allow-more-leniency/article_2f4634d2-2823-11e1-9453-001871e3ce6c.html

Good for you!  Protests don't usually erupt in violence; it's just that those are the events that make the news.  Still, it happens.

Protests are the American way since the the Boston Tea Party.  Hopefully, your govinator (got into the habit of using that word when we had Arnie for gov) will eventually get the message.  Not sure how he has managed to hold on this long in the face of so much disapproval.

kath21:

Protests are the American way since the the Boston Tea Party. 

Peaceful protests are ok, violent ones are not. I've never been clear as to why the Boston Tea Party is considered such a noble event in American history. A bunch of colonists boarded 3 private ships (American owned, not British) and destroyed tea (grown in China) owned by a private company (the British East India Company, which was what would today be called a publicly traded corporation, i.e. having private shareholders whose shares traded on an exchange) as a form of protest against the Crown's tax on tea. It caused £9,656 in the loss of approximately 46 tons of tea, and the loss in today's dollars would be about $1.7 milion. Is vandalism and destruction of private property a valid form of protest against the government? I never thought so, and for that reason I don't hold the Boston Tea Party as the proud moment of our history that many people seem to make of it.

kath21:

Not sure how he has managed to hold on this long in the face of so much disapproval.

Because, despite all the protests against the governor, he also does have support, too, which you do not hear as much about. As is typical with the press, the loudest noises get the ink. The state is, much like the country as a whole, split between liberal and conservative views and is experiencing some of the same polarizing politics that we see in DC as a result.

Taxagent:

Is vandalism and destruction of private property a valid form of protest against the government?

It was the only form of power they had at the time.

Although protests aren't often neat or inexpensive, they happen when the people are frustrated.  Such as the "occupiers" now; they don't appear to have a clear message or goal, but sometimes it is the only tool the public has.  Especially while the govt appears to prefer fighting with itself.  None of those people in govt are worried about  where their next meal is coming from....and they got us into the situation we are in now!  But are not the ones suffering for it.

Watching nothing happening in the last few years has raised the frustration level.   Sure, it's not organized or sensible.  But it is an attention-getting ploy while the govt allows Rome to burn...in the eyes of the have-nots.

kath21:

It was the only form of power they had at the time.

No, it was not the only power they had. They had other options of peaceful protest. They could, for example, have simply boycotted buying tea.

Some people today are frustrated over the government's banking policies. Would that justify a group of protestors entering a private bank and destroying its property as a form of protest? I don't think so. And the Boston Tea Party was analogous that. They destroyed the property of a PRIVATE PERSON to protest government policy. How is that not offensive?