113 Comments - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:45 am: The sidewalk is close enough. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:48 am: Absolutely not. The demonstrators have rights, so too do others with legitimate work inside the building. The first floor is perfectly appropriate for demonstrations, but moving it beyond there will lead to chaos and effectively limit the rights of others who need access to the building and the members of the General Assembly. - cdog - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:50 am: Too many variables in this new era of demonstrating. Security would have to be increased to prevent/remove demonstrators with more sinister intentions, I think illinois has enough bills to pay. - jono - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:50 am: If lobbyists are allowed above the first floor so should demonstrators - AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:51 am: Voted yes. It is a public building and a Constitutionally protected right. Sure, it’s annoying, but they have every right to do so. - allknowingmasterofracoondom - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:51 am: No way. Too many safety issues. - DuPage Bard - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:51 am: It is the people’s Capitol correct? How do you not allow protesting? - Chicago_Downstater - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:55 am: I voted to rescind the ban. Protesting isn’t my cup of tea as I’ve mentioned before & think the ban is technically constitutional–there are limits on just about every right & think this limitation is tailored enough to pass muster. Still it feels like this ban goes against my–admittedly limited–understanding of “the spirit of democracy.” TL:DR I get the practicality of the ban, but I dislike limits on civic participation. Rescind. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:58 am: This thing reads like the Lobster/Brass Rail Comfort Act. It’s ridiculously broad. Either the ban should be reworked/rescinded or these two pesky word-constructions should: SECTION 5. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION The people have the right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives and to apply for redress of grievances. AMENDMENT I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - Texas Red - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:58 am: Keep-em on the first floor - no infringement of speech as this is well within the constitutionally recognized reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. - Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 11:58 am: Voted ‘no’. Demonstrations should not be allowed to disrupt or prevent everyday business from being conducted regardless of whether the building is public or private. Demonstrators are allowed to demonstrate and business as usual can go on. It’s a reasonable compromise. - Tommydanger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:02 pm: Let me understand, so as long as you represent people that are willing to write a check to demonstrate their appreciation for a legislator’s view point/vote, you can come and go as you wish. But stand silently on the second floor and hold a sign expressing your point of view and that’s illegal? Very Trumpian in nature - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:05 pm: –Demonstrations should not be allowed to disrupt or prevent everyday business from being conducted regardless of whether the building is public or private.– Then I guess Lobsters shouldn’t be able to “disrupt” business by sending the doormen to bother lawmakers and pull them off the floor. Again, this ban is way too broad. Get’s pretty noisy and disruptive around the Brass Rail when the deals are going down, or when the press-pack is on the prowl. They’re not special classes of citizens. - Keyser Soze - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:05 pm: Without saying as much, the authors seem to have defined conduct which is orderly versus that which is not. Many arrests are made for the infraction of disorderly conduct. In this connection, it is easy to envision some demonstrators being arrested, largely because they wish to be arrested. Life will go on. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:06 pm: ===or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.=== Those of us who professionally petition the government for a redress of grievances often find our rights impaired by others lawfully exercising their rights to peaceably assemble (if the cacophonous chanting/shouting/singing can be considered “peaceable”). Whose rights take precedence if/when these are in conflict? The rights of the demonstrator or the rights of the lobbyist? - Rascal Phlatts - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:10 pm: From Grayned vs City of Rockford….”In other words, Marshall said, cities and other branches of government had the right to place “reasonable `time, place and manner’ regulations” to protect certain governmental interests. However, these regulations had to be so clear that no one could interpret them differently for different groups–they had to apply in the same way to everybody.” - JS Mill - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:10 pm: The capital is the peoples house. I voted “yes”. Democracy can be inconvenient, even messy. - Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:12 pm: ===Then I guess Lobsters shouldn’t be able to “disrupt” business by sending the doormen to bother lawmakers and pull them off the floor.=== I get what you’re saying and don’t really disagree with it. Unfortunately, what you describe IS everyday business in politics. Neither should be allowed but you can’t justify letting one group do it simply because another group gets to. Two wrongs don’t make a right. - A guy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:13 pm: No. Not in a public place. Not in a private place. The entrances, yes. The first floor (in a public building), yes. Those are even accommodated. Above that…no. Especially here. Stairs create a whole different hazard. No. No. No. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:14 pm: @Keyser Soze If the intent of the bill was to indirectly define disorderly conduct, then I definitely agree with Wordslinger that the bill is far too broad. There are several activities explicitly mentioned in the bill that can be accomplished in an orderly fashion (i.e. “selling non- commercial printed matter or materials, moving in procession, holding of vigils). - Porgy Tirebiter - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:15 pm: Has anybody ever done a study as to if demonstrations actually have any effect? They do attract the media but they also just seem to annoy everybody else around them - Chicago_Downstater - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:15 pm: Sorry, anon @ 12:14 PM was me. - Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:15 pm: So was Dunkin’s ’sleep in’ illegal? - Flapdoodle - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:17 pm: Voted no, but without enthusiasm. SCOTUS has allowed content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on assembly and speech, so the ban on demonstrations meets the constitutional test. But I agree with Wordslinger that the language is sloppy and needs revision. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:17 pm: –Whose rights take precedence if/when these are in conflict? The rights of the demonstrator or the rights of the lobbyist?– You just wanted to write “cacophonous,” didn’t you? Can’t trot that one out every day. I understand your question, but it’s a good problem to have, considering the alternatives. Rights are not unlimited, so I’m certain reasonable rules can be made short of an outright ban as exists now. - Black Top Hat - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:18 pm: Who are the monarchy loving commenters on this thread? Every space within the Capitol is a public space, from the representative and gov offices, to the house and senate chambers. Protesters don’t need anyone’s permission, they have an inherent right that has slowly been dilluted over time. - (un)Happy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:19 pm: Wordslinger @ 11:58am already made my case. But I would add that banning certain areas of the Statehouse is a slippery slope and should be rescinded. If they can ban the people from one area, then that area can easily grow over time to the point of preventing the fundamental purpose of holding a demonstration. That being to gain the attention of the people’s representatives and, yes, to cause a disruption. Section 5 doesn’t say “at a time and place convenient to those representatives. Furthermore the Statehouse is OUR house. We shouldn’t be restricted from any area as long as we remain non-violent. - zatoichi - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:21 pm: I’ve been in the Capitol when there are big, loud groups on the first floor. The volume echoes everywhere so what difference does it make where the sound comes from? If the lobsters can work the second floor and other offices why can’t the demonstrators? The safety issues are important. That is a serious fall on the marble stairs or anything over the rail. Leave the rule alone. - go sox - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:21 pm: what happens when the first floor becomes fully occupied with one particular group and other groups can’t enter? - Altois - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:22 pm: Peaceful demonstration should be allowed, but not have carte blanche to occur anywhere. Outside, on sidewalks, or the first floor, is certainly a fair restriction so the protestors can get their message across. For safety sake, and so as not to interrupt the business of the General Assembly, you can’t just give protestors free rein. - NoNews - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:23 pm: No. Agree with others: First floor is adequate for demonstrations. Nothing prohibits the public from going beyond the first floor, as long as they are conducting themselves appropriately. They still have access. Our capitol is a working building and the rights of those who office there have to be considered. The other point is that I have never in my many years working in and around seen that shouting or chanting change the mind of a legislator on an issue. So while it may serve to make the person demonstrating believe they are doing something, it does not do much beyond annoy the other people who have to be at the Capitol at the same time. - walker - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:26 pm: No. Demonstration are already allowed on the first floor and often can be heard on the other floors. It’s not like the elected legislators and officers don’t know they’re there and why. Moving demonstrations to higher floors just makes it too easy to shut down government operations entirely. We already are one of the most accessible government buildings around. Occasionally having a note or card passed from a lobbyist at the rail is hardly as disruptive. - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:27 pm: Outside the building, sure peacefully demonstrations are fine, inside the building. On the first floor, ok I guess as long as it is not disrupting anyone who may actually be trying to get some work done, or people wanting to tour the building they’ve paid for. Being able to hold demonstrations on the same floor as the chambers would be a nightmare, legislatures have enough trouble getting anything done without that distraction. People should be able to visit the entire building and their elected officials, but not at the expense of intentionally disrupting them from doing the job they are elected and/or paid to do for the citizens of Illinois. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:28 pm: ===Who are the monarchy loving commenters on this thread?=== So you must be speaking for the anarchists. You nailed it, it is a PUBLIC space and the public ought to be welcomed inside the building. Why not on the House floor? Why not inside the Governor’s office? Try chanting from the Senate gallery and see how long you’ll be allowed to stay. The fact is, on any given day, a visiting school group on a 7th grade civics field trip might have to navigate the great purple horde of SEIU, or be subjected to photos of aborted fetuses from the Pro-Life Action League, or encounter disability advocates on the floor, blocking access to a PUBLIC building. Nobody’s rights are being diminished by keeping the circus acts on the first floor and allowing otherwise relatively open access to the other parts of the building the PUBLIC ought to have. Maybe some of you have never been there when ISRA calls out its members at the same time the Orange of AFSCME is deployed while Equality Illinois and Access Living send buses to the Capitol. Good luck if you’re some poor public tour group. Enjoy the Howlett Building I guess. - Mr. Smith - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:29 pm: I understand that there are security concerns that need to be addressed. And that would cost some money. But while the quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin about trading liberty for safety has been quoted - and misquoted - out of context ad nauseum, I don’t think it is an entirely false dichotomy, either. I voted yes, but I would be in favor of a revised measure that would allow peaceful, non-disruptive gatherings and “demonstrations”. If a lobbyist can go there, why can’t a citizen with a sign? - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:34 pm: –Moving demonstrations to higher floors just makes it too easy to shut down government operations entirely.– Come on. That’s wildly overstating it. Besides, the GA and governor don’t need any help in that objective. Are we to believe there’s no way for citizens other than lobsters to exercise their Constitutional rights on the second floor? - Pelonski - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:36 pm: I’m a big advocate of free speech, which includes protests and demonstrations, but I’m not an advocate of free speech that obstructs the free speech rights of others. There needs to be places for the less vocal to be heard as well. - Retired Lawyer - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:36 pm: I agree with Wordslinger and (un)Happy. The US Constitution First Amendment, which applies to the states, says that NO law shall be made “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Illinois law referenced abridges the freedom of speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Accordingly the prohibition against demonstrations other than on the first floor technically violates the first amendment to the US Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights. - EVanstonian - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:37 pm: I believe the point of asking for a redress of grievances is to get someone to pay attention to you, and where you may be able to peaceably force someone to listen for longer than the time it takes to run to the stairs. The concern trolling about violent protests on the 2nd or 3rd floor is too much for me — how many violent protests are there on the 1st floor or on the sidewalk? The problem wouldn’t be that there are protests at all, it would be the violence. I voted rescind. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:38 pm: Voted no. Demonstrations in the Capitol building are a bad optic. Better outside a ways off where we can get 10000 in. Seriously in the age of Rauner demonstrations must be different and not support Rauners narrative. I’ve worked for months now on the development of Mass prayer groups A state workers gospel choir Targeting businesses who have been receiving hundreds of millions of our tax dollars ( Prairie street Brewhouse/Luxury Condos/Marina in Rockford. Go look at the website to see what taxpayers paid for) And this is a total warning. Gov Rauner, if you force us out on strike, I swear AFSCME state workers will have time to attend every municipal/county meeting, every public hearing in order to “seize the means of production” your cronies wealth production. No TIF, EDGE, tax incentive, loophole, Enterprize zone, tax evasion strategy will be safe. We’ve been hard at work keeping the state afloat. Go ahead Governor. Give us the time to get all in your business. The cool part is that fiscal conservatives are all on board with this. They much rather have their tax money go to meals on wheels. Trust Honeybear Gov. Rauner, you want to keep us working. AFSCME gave you a fair offer. Take it. Because if we go down, Intersect Illinois goes all the way down, all your little tax stealers get exposed, AFSCMEs know where the bodies are buried. Sunlight will disinfect Dude, fiscal conservatives are gonna be pissed. - jimbo - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:40 pm: It is the People’s house and the rules are designed to keep people in their place. Let the people have access. Talking about safety is just an excuse to keep people away. And we should understand that a rally on the first floor requires a permit which allow the denial of speech. - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:42 pm: Not really sure how this will work. Some group or person is going to quickly test this. Dealing with and working around large and loud demonstrations are part of the gig as a lobbyist, lawmaker or staffer. If you can’t deal with a couple of hours of it, you should probably look into a position at the state library. - (un)Happy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:42 pm: Does anyone know when the current ban was effective and/or what was the impetus? Was it a result of the ERA demonstration in the 80’s? - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:44 pm: ===Are we to believe there’s no way for citizens other than lobsters to exercise their Constitutional rights on the second floor?=== If you want to loudly make your point in a public demonstration, do that on the first floor. After you’re finished hooting and hollering and singing, feel free to walk upstairs and lobby your legislators all you please. Don’t forget to visit Stratton too, but your signs and bullhorn aren’t welcome inside there, so maybe put those back on the bus. Really, what is complicated about this? No one’s rights are being denied, but there is a big difference between demonstrations and lobbying. And both need to be allowed and ensured. This restriction seems to do that, while also ensuring some orderly access to the facilities. Are you really trying to deny how intentionally disruptive some of these demonstrations can be? - Shanks - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:45 pm: There should be a place for demonstrators…but it really shouldn’t interfere with normal business or other peoples lives (as in, preventing them to do their job)…not that it really matters…they haven’t passed a budget in two years…/s - Signal and Noise - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:48 pm: If a lobbyist can hit up a legislator on the rail, then everyday people with something to say to the GA or constitutional officer have the same right. - walker - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:50 pm: There has to be a middle ground, where voices are heard, but government can operate. Those basing the rights of demonstrators on the First Amendment, would of course allow them every day into the Oval Office. No? - Montrose - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:50 pm: I’ve both been the demonstrator and the annoyed lobbyist wishing the demonstrators would go away. And while it can be annoying to push through the crowds and hear the chants reverberate through the building, isn’t that the point? To agitate? To be heard? The “you can demonstrate as long as you don’t make it inconvenient for others.” is pretty weak sauce. Narrow it. Speak to legitimate safety concerns. Don’t disallow it because it creates discomfort. We will never get anything done id we don’t have discomfort. - Allen Skillicorn - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:52 pm: “Right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances…” I see enforcing the ban to be a challenge. - Politically Incorrect - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:52 pm: Notably at the U.S. Supreme Court,protesters are barred from the grounds entirely — even the large plaza area in front of the steps. They have to walk on the sidewalk down by the street. Not taking sides here, but there should be reasonable areas that are allowed for protest that does not endanger nor totally disrupt the conduct of State business. - Mouthy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:54 pm: Voted Yes because it’s unenforceable.. - Wylie Coyote - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:55 pm: No. It’s one thing to be a paid lobbyist, but it’s another thing to be a paid protester who came for the cash, bag lunch and a bus ride and told to make as much noise as possible…… - Chicago_Downstater - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:56 pm: @(un)Happy If it was due to the ERA demonstrations, then I understand the overreaction. We studied that & it wasn’t pretty by the end. I’m afraid the ERA demonstrations at the IL Capitol were a great example of how an overzealous protest can damage your cause overall. Still, there has to be a better way to deal with the issue. I mean there’s already sections in that document that separately explain that you can’t block doorways, stairwells, etc. - OLD STATE HOUSE DOG - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:56 pm: The ERA demonstrations were one motivating element in the rules that were developed. A lawyer for then Secretary Edgar was charged with a difficult assignment: crafting regulations that permitted public demonstrations, while maintaining order. He surveyed the other States’ regulations and developed very liberal rules to permit public access and yet accommodate public safety and State operations. There have been times when I believe too many people are in the building. I hope the SOS has some guidelines on when access should be limited, and yes, denied (to some, only until the numbers demonstrating can be safely accommodated)for safety reasons when hundreds of people are crammed in there. - Annonin' - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:56 pm: Voted no because statehouse protests are useless…they should storm district offices … they probably have the right to go everywhere - OldIllini - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:59 pm: I voted no, but the language is overly broad, especially the phrase “or other activities.” Tighten up the language. I think, for example, that quietly handing out leaflets should be permitted. Currently that comes under “other activities.” - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 12:59 pm: ===If a lobbyist can hit up a legislator on the rail, then everyday people with something to say to the GA or constitutional officer have the same right.=== Is this really that difficult to understand? Everyday people are currently allowed to meet with legislators on the third floor (and elsewhere). Just like lobbyists with fancy shoes can. What should not be allowed is a large and loud group of peaceful protesters obstructing the rights of others who are there to lobby legislators. Everybody’s rights need to be protected. And for the First Amendment scholars with us today, libel laws, slander, defamation, shoutint “fire” in a crowded theater, there are plenty of restrictions on speech. The anarchists here also should be grateful that you aren’t charged a $300-$600 annual fee to exercise your constitutional rights like lobbyists are. - Montrose - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:01 pm: “No. It’s one thing to be a paid lobbyist, but it’s another thing to be a paid protester who came for the cash, bag lunch and a bus ride and told to make as much noise as possible……” A) I’m pretty sure paid lobbyist are getting paid to make as much noise as possible in their own way B) The fact that someone give their travel and food covered for a day makes then a shill? There may be some folks that get cash on top of costs, but I don’t know who that is. C) To sum up - if you aren’t a professional, you have no place making your voice heard in government. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:03 pm: Retired lawyer: There are a whole host of laws placing reasonable restrictions on demonstrating. And the Supreme Court has upheld them. You’re a lawyer who doesn’t know that certain types of speech can be restricted? Try yelling fire in a movie theater, for instance. Point being - this restriction is probably legal. And restrictions in general, when they are reasonable and content neutral, are definitely legal. - KAA-boom - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:03 pm: Current system seems to work well. Leave it be. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:08 pm: –Are you really trying to deny how intentionally disruptive some of these demonstrations can be?– I don’t believe I’ve tried that at all. I’m stating quite clearly that this total ban on any demonstration is too broad. –Those basing the rights of demonstrators on the First Amendment,– what else would you base them on? – would of course allow them every day into the Oval Office. No?– Woof, that is some big honkin’ Strawman. Walker, I bet you could knock that one down yourself, if you put your mind to it. I’ll just repeat, rights are not unlimited, but denial of rights, or restricting them to a government-approved class, cannot be abitrary and capricious. Really, do you believe there is absolutely no way that demonstrations, of any manner, can be “allowed” on the second floor. Like it’s monk’s retreat up there, anyway. - Cook County Commoner - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:13 pm: No modifications. In fact the law should be tightened to limit “speech” to placards and posters. This is a hearing health issue. These people need to learn how to hire lobbyists and pack envelopes with cash like eveyone else. - Joe M - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:20 pm: It is my understanding that since this notice is labeled a “proposed amendment” in the proposed regulation section, it is just that - a proposal. It can’t become an actual regulation until it is published in the Illinois Register as a final regulation. Anything underlined red is a newly proposed amendment of the existing regulation - as is the section limiting demonstrations to the first floor. It looks like the soonest it could take effect would be after the 45 day public comment period listed. So you all have a chance to make your comments to the Secretary of State and affect the outcome of this proposed amendment to this regulation. Regulations and amendments DO change from the publishing of a proposed regulation to the final regulation, often based on comments received. - m - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:23 pm: =Then I guess Lobsters shouldn’t be able to “disrupt” business by sending the doormen to bother lawmakers and pull them off the floor.= Protestors can do the exact same thing. Put down the sign, stop screaming, go upstairs and hand your card to the doorman. People are acting like lobbyists are given a right that ordinary people aren’t, but that’s not the case. “Demonstrators” can be on the second, third, fourth, etc. floor, can hang out at the rail, etc., they just can’t stage a loud and disruptive protest above the 1st floor. Anyone who has ever been to a protest, demonstration, or rally at the Capitol is well aware that a lot of the people involved head to the rail or lawmakers’ offices after the protest. SEIU easily has the loudest rallies, and you see lots of those purple shirts all over the Capitol after the rally. No one’s rights are being trampled. Having an actual protest in an already crowded space around the rail with a big drop down to marble floors is asking for serious trouble. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:25 pm: ===I’ll just repeat, rights are not unlimited, but denial of rights, or restricting them to a government-approved class, cannot be abitrary and capricious.=== They are not restricting rights to a government-approved class. They are limiting them to a government-approved location. No one’s rights are being denied. The rights of lots of different types of user, equally valid, are being protected by limiting the location of “peaceful demonstrations.” Seriously Word, you’ve never been there when folks lie on the floor to intentionally block access to the stairs and elevators? If you haven’t had to tip-toe across the bodies of those whose intent is to deny my ability to do my job, or a reporter to do her job, or to a teacher to show students the House gallery, then I can’t help you understand this. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:25 pm: Yes. There is research to suggest that demonstrations are effective. Generally they work on true principles: shame (pointing out the hypocracy) or work-slowdown (forcing those who are carrying out work as normal to face disruptions in that normality). This is a typical tactic for those who do not have direct access to power. To take away their right to protest is to take away their already limited power. (Generally groups who can create change by gentle conversation in hallways and over lunch do not need to hold demonstrations.) - My New Handle - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:28 pm: Rep. Currie made it a point during a debate on forbidding smoking in public buildings that she could still smoke in her “private” office in the Statehouse. Don’t know how a public official can have a private office in a public building; but lawmakers have a special affinity for exempting themselves from the laws they make. Demonstrating on the second or third floor just exempts them from being confronted by their constituents when they don’t want to be. - Joe M - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:29 pm: My mistake, there is already a line in the regulation on this topic that isn’t underlined, so that ban is already in place. I initially only saw the line further down limiting demonstrations to the first floor that was underlined in reg. - uptowncity - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:32 pm: This is a bad policy. The reason why there are demonstrations is that the General Assembly isn’t doing their job. Why punish demonstrators who are rightfully angry about the lack of budget? It’s impacting their lives so they have the right to disrupt the General Assembly. - 13th - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:33 pm: ever been there on NRA day, the first floor restriction is a joke on that day - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:34 pm: –Seriously Word, you’ve never been there when folks lie on the floor to intentionally block access to the stairs and elevators?– Yes, I have, and I have not suggested that manner of protest is Constitutionally protected. I’ve said that a blanket ban on all manner of protest in this section of the public square is too broad. I’ll see your “laying on the floor and blocking stairs and elevators” and raise you a “group of elderly nuns holding signs and passing out literature in support of funding for homeless shelters.” Anyone can play that game. - (un)Happy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:38 pm: =These people need to learn how to hire lobbyists and pack envelopes with cash like eveyone else.= Interesting point. Most people who organize demonstrations do so specifically because they don’t have the resources to hire a lobbyist or form a PAC. Our only option is to demonstrate in a collective voice as voters. Our only leverage is to let our representatives know that we’re paying attention and that there could be consequences on election day if they choose not to listen. We the people can enforce our own checks and balances on government in this way. The spirit of the law is to ensure that we are free to make ourselves heard if we choose to do so in a peaceable manner. - siriusly - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:40 pm: Every legislator’s office is open to the public. All the ones I know respond personally to emails and phone calls from their constituents. We don’t have a problem with people not being able to access their legislators. The question is about the loud singing and protesting. Yes, it’s a form of free speech. But I agree with 47. I voted no - this is also a building where publicly elected officials are doing official business. There should be some moderation on the ability to “protest” Go talk to your legislators, go join the protest on the 1st floor. But that doesn’t mean you have the right to disrupt the government’s business in the rest of building. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:44 pm: –The question is about the loud singing and protesting.– For crying out loud, read the definition. It’s way beyond that. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:44 pm: No outside fits tens of thousands anyway I think old school demonstrations are of very limited use - titan - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:46 pm: Voted no - the upper levels are a place of business, and demonstrations interrupt business. If permitted unfettered, a dedicated group could prevent all state business from ever occurring. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:47 pm: “It is my understanding that since this notice is labeled a “proposed amendment” in the proposed regulation section, it is just that - a proposal. It can’t become an actual regulation until it is published in the Illinois Register as a final regulation.” It also has to go through JCAR before it can be adopted as a final regulation. SOS can submit this rule to JCAR for review anytime after the 45-day comment period ends, but they don’t have to do that right away — some agencies wait weeks or even months before doing so. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:49 pm: Just gotta say, this is the best question we’ve had in a while. I’m thoroughly enjoying the answers on both sides. - Union proud - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:53 pm: Voted yes. In Winsconsin demonstrators occupied the capitol building for a good length of time and somehow “business” managed to get done… - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 1:53 pm: ===Anyone can play that game.=== That’s also the conundrum. I’d love to see nuns with signs passing out literature protesting cuts to homeless shelters. I’d love to see that right in front of the Governor’s office on the second floor. Every day. But then I’d also have to look at Joe Schidler’s abortion-porn outside somebody else’s office on the 3rd floor. It’s too easy to pick and choose who should be allowed to publicly demonstrate and where. Limiting it to one place, a very prominent place at that, solves the problem by treating everyone the same while ensuring access for all users of the building, including and perhaps especially, the non-elected staff who have to go there to work every day. I don’t think restricting the location for demonstrations to the first floor is an unreasonable restriction on the rights of the demonstrators. - m - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:01 pm: =Most people who organize demonstrations do so specifically because they don’t have the resources to hire a lobbyist or form a PAC.= That would not describe 99% of the demonstrations that I’ve ever seen at the Capitol. Busing people in from the city, paid organizers, sack lunches, gift cards, pre-printed signs, that’s what you see in the rotunda. - m - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:05 pm: =I’ll see your “laying on the floor and blocking stairs and elevators” and raise you a “group of elderly nuns holding signs and passing out literature in support of funding for homeless shelters.”= The ban, as you are well aware, is for the first group. It doesn’t matter who CAN protest peacefully and not cause safety issues, it matters that some won’t, and the rules have to treat everyone the same. Why can’t you carry a gun into the Capitol? It’s not because you are a threat, but because someone else could be, and if they let YOU do it… - Montrose - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:24 pm: “That would not describe 99% of the demonstrations that I’ve ever seen at the Capitol. Busing people in from the city, paid organizers, sack lunches, gift cards, pre-printed signs, that’s what you see in the rotunda.” Yes, a demonstration costs money and needs resources to organize. To try to delegitmize it because there are costs that are covered or to equate it to the dollars associated with big time contract lobbbyist/PACs is ridiculous. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:24 pm: I voted no. I don’t mind the protests - and I don’t care if lobbyists get upset - but school groups, civic organizations and tourists come through and if there’s hundreds of Purple People Eaters or IGOLD folks of whomever then that limits other people’s abilities to enjoy a school trip or a visit to our awesome building. Also - if my memory serves me correctly there have been protests/demonstrations on the 2nd and 3rd floors. I believe a bunch of disability advocates attempted to clog the 3rd floor during some of Governor Quinn’s speeches on the House floor. And didn’t people have a “die in” in front of the Governor’s office last year? - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:27 pm: So, if my group and I are all wearing the same shirt, and walking up the stairs at the same time- is that a procession? To the point, this language is way too broad and non specific. - m - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:37 pm: =To try to delegitmize it because there are costs that are covered or to equate it to the dollars associated with big time contract lobbbyist/PACs is ridiculous.= Not trying to delegitimize anything, but I’m trying really hard to think of a protest or rally I’ve seen at the Capitol that’s from a group that doesn’t have lobbyists. SEIU? AFSCME? NRA? IEA? IFT? CTU? Sierra Club? AARP? Whatever the big college nurse group is called? The Catholic schools? Nope, they all have lobbyists. Yes I’m sure there are some, but it’s rare in Springfield. Again, 99% of the protests at the Capitol are from very well funded groups. The previous commentators statement that it’s primarily a tool of those who don’t have the resources to lobby is ridiculous, at least in the context of the dome. But from your point of view I’m guessing you consider the IPI protests very legitimate? - Sir Reel - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:38 pm: I voted yes as there’s scant “business conducted” on the second floor these days. - Not quite a majority - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:38 pm: I voted yes. I’m in total agreement with the ‘no sticks’ ban on any type of potential wooden instrument (as in the sticks that hold up signs) but I can’t see how a silent vigil outside the doors of either chamber disrupts anything but the sensibilities of the few on the other side of the doors. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:46 pm: I am fully with 47th Ward on this. One possible exception: If they are so insistent on ‘movin’ on up’, give the the liberty to use the dome catwalk. - Veil of Ignorance - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 2:58 pm: Yes, because the rule leaves too much room for discretionary calls that would biased against certain content vs. others. If the focus is safety, then keep it laser-focused on that. Disruptive due to impeding foot traffic? Ok. Disruptive due to noise? Probably not. Bullhorns could arguably damage hearing, but other than that I think it gets shaky. Also, don’t folks visit the Capitol to see our democracy in action? Then this is part of that. Students should understand what was the foundation of our democracy dating back to the Revolution. If it’s not in the chambers or offices of the legislators, then I’m not sure why protesters aren’t allowed to protest. This is elected officials wanting free speech that doesn’t impact/agitate them in any way, pure and simple. - Veil of Ignorance - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:01 pm: One more thing: lobbyists know how to get to their targets, protests don’t really impact that; it just changes the location…that’s why it’s called the “inside” game. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:04 pm: –Having an actual protest in an already crowded space around the rail with a big drop down to marble floors is asking for serious trouble.– If it’s a safety issue, fine, make a safety argument. I would not argue that creating unsafe conditions are protected by the First Amendment. But a blanket prohibition of all forms of speech or assembly in a portion of the public square due to some vague notion of “disruption” is too broad. But that’s just my First-Amendment scholar/Anarchist opinion. - The Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:13 pm: You can really tell who regularly works in the capitol and who once visited on a 5th grade field trip from these responses. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:14 pm: ===a blanket prohibition of all forms of speech or assembly in a portion of the public square=== I’m with Word on this one. And I really hate being in crowds. - D43D - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:19 pm: You have the right to protest but that doesnt mean you have the right to protest in the entire building. Come to think of it, the ability to protest in the capitol amazes me … one would think that protesters should be just kept outside. Do protesters have the right to protest inside the Thompson Center? Do protesters have the luxury to do so in any other building for that matter?? When UFCW workers strike do they protest in the headquarters of Jewel or Marianos?? - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:19 pm: I still don’t see how “all forms of speech” are being prohibited outside the first floor. I see all kinds of people meeting with legislators, reporters, lobbyists, etc., around the rail. The only difference is, they are not doing it at the top of their lungs in an organized attempt to call public attention to their cause. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:37 pm: –I still don’t see how “all forms of speech” are being prohibited outside the first floor. – You’re right, that phrasing was inaccurate and too broad on my part. But I still maintain the current prohibition on demonstrations, as defined, is too broad and excludes safe, peaceful, lawful, protected speech and assembly. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:41 pm: I’d settle for a limit on the decibel level. Anything louder than an “inside voice” shall be restricted to the first floor. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:43 pm: “What do we want?” “Incremental change!” “When do we want it?” “Soon!” - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 3:53 pm: –The ban, as you are well aware, is for the first group.– No, the ban is for all groups. – It doesn’t matter who CAN protest peacefully and not cause safety issues, it matters that some won’t, and the rules have to treat everyone the same.– That makes sense to you? The ol’ “some people ruin it for everyone” bit from grade school? I’m certain that you can make rules that allow for demonstrations that don’t threaten public safety. Those that violate the rules get the hook. –Why can’t you carry a gun into the Capitol? – Because Todd and the NRA haven’t made a beef about it — yet. But I’d argue that under current law and Constitutional rulings, there’s a much stronger case for banning guns from the Capitol then there is for banning all protests from the second floor. - Dome Gnome - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 4:01 pm: Yes, rescind. What is a lobbyist, if not a demonstrator with better clothes and money? Set the people loose on the rail. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 4:05 pm: DG, A lobbyist does privately what a demonstrator does publicly. And the lobbyists generally try not to call too much attention to themselves. There are some differences, and there is a dictionary definition of “demonstration” that is quite different from lobbying. Otherwise you are correct. - Oswego resident - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 4:12 pm: Voted “yes” rescind. Having demonstrated there I feel the closer the legislators are to the voices of the public the better. Our elected officials are much too removed from the people’s collective voice. There is not a single legislator that I feel cares about my point of view. - Veil of Ignorance - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 4:50 pm: To guns in Capitol comment, in 2004 there was a shooting in the Capitol and one person sadly died. Ask around…staffers will tell you about it. - m - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 5:02 pm: =That makes sense to you? The ol’ “some people ruin it for everyone” bit from grade school? = Yes, that’s basically where legal restrictions come from. If everyone could drive 90 without causing accidents, we wouldn’t have speed limits. If no one committed violent crimes, guns could be carried everywhere. If no builders skimped on quality, we wouldn’t have building codes. Everyday we live with restrictions on our rights because other people do bad things. That’s the real world. =No, the ban is for all groups.= Is this just hitting things out of context? The next line of my comment said specifically the rules have to treat everyone the same. Maybe I should rephrase it for you, the rules don’t exist BECAUSE of your nuns, they exist BECAUSE of the laying on the stairs crowd. And yes, they apply to all groups. But if it was all peaceful nuns, then we might not have the rules. But that’s not the world we live in. =If it’s a safety issue, fine, make a safety argument.= Sorry, thought I did exactly that. That whole part about “protest in an already crowded space around the rail with a big drop down to marble floors is asking for serious trouble.” =You can really tell who regularly works in the capitol and who once visited on a 5th grade field trip from these responses.= Yes, exactly. - The Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 5:08 pm: Oswego Resident- I would guess that whomever planned your groups demonstration did a poor job. Standing in the capitol holding signs and shouting doesn’t get much attention. Multiple groups do it every day and instead of standing out you just become the norm. A better course of action is to meet with your representatives quietly and professionally and explain your point of view instead of shouting it at their face. Take a cure from the professional advocates. If bullying, shouting and waving signs was effective they would all be doing it. A well prepared constituent trumps a professional lobbyist every day but professional shouters who think they are entitled to bully everyone around them are quickly ignored. - m - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 5:10 pm: =To guns in Capitol comment, in 2004 there was a shooting in the Capitol and one person sadly died. Ask around…staffers will tell you about it.= Yes, why there are now guards at every door with metal detectors. You should ask the guards some time about the stuff they find on people… Doesn’t matter how many times someone carried a gun in the Capitol with no incident, or how many times people weren’t subject to metal detectors without incident, the rules and security are because of what have been done or would be done by a tiny minority. THus 2A rights are restricted there. Certain protesters are the reason for 1A rights being restricted here. No protester is held back from the 2nd or 3rd floor, they just have to put down the sign and stop yelling. They are welcome to go lobby lawmakers, no one is stopping them from doing exactly what lobbyists do. No one, not a teacher protesting pension reform nor a lobbyist is allowed to picket and yell on 3. Everyone is treated the same. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 5:33 pm: –THus 2A rights are restricted there– Take it up with the Supremes. From Heller: “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Your equating of the potential dangers of loud singing and gunfire as reasons for curtailing rights are duly noted, however. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 18, 17 @ 6:00 pm: As long as they stay away from the rail. - Rabid - Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 6:17 am: First he wanted a groundswell of support for his agenda, well people are gathering over his agenda - Rabid - Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 6:28 am: Why not ban the public from the second floor. The public and the lobbyist can only come by appointment. In the name of transparency for all to see what’s important - Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 6:44 am: Does this mean no more Rauner and the ‘ites’ media events on the second floor stairs? That’s conducted for the purpose of demonstrating approval or disapproval of governmental policies or practices (or the lack thereof)that’s intended to draw a crowd. - m - Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 9:08 am: =Your equating of the potential dangers of loud singing and gunfire as reasons for curtailing rights are duly noted, however. = Two constitutional rights with reasonable restrictions for public safety. Doesn’t matter if you care more about one than the other. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.