Blocking public roadways and highways in an act of mass protest could saddle groups expressing their First Amendment rights with misdemeanor charges, heavy fines and possible jail time under a Republican bill discussed Wednesday by a Michigan House panel.
House Bill 4664, sponsored by state Rep. Alicia St. Germaine (R-Harrison Township), was before the House Judiciary Committee, which adopted a substitute altering the bill but took no further action after hearing testimony.
St. Germaine said her bill was aimed at ensuring public safety and preventing obstructions to traffic when groups hold political actions in areas designated for motor vehicles.
The bill would change the current civil infraction for blocking the flow of traffic to a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail and up to a $5,000 fine, or both.
“It’s a problem, and we all have the right to free speech and to assemble to express our opinions,” St. Germaine said. “Where that ends is when you block people or hold them hostage, because that’s exactly what’s going on in some of these scenarios.”
The bill sponsor showed the committee short, edited and glossed up TikTok videos of protests where it was insinuated that demonstrators had caused some kind of dangerous obstruction.
But state Rep. Kara Hope (D-Holt) noted that it appeared that some of the videos showed instances where the drivers were in the wrong because they drove their vehicles into protesters, thereby assaulting them in the process.
The conversation broke into a short debate over who was at fault in situations where drivers become aggressive against protesters, with St. Germaine saying it was unfair to not hold a protester accountable for blocking a roadway. She was also adamant that blocking someone in their car for a long period while protesters made their political points amounted to hostage taking and false imprisonment.
State Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi) was quick to note that the bill covers only fault for the protesters, some of whom might become injured through the aggressive actions of a driver if they ram protesters with their vehicle. Breen said that protesters could, under the bill, become seriously injured by someone who was frustrated with the protest and then also face jail time for expressing their right to free assembly.
Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard testified in favor of the bill.
Bouchard said the current civil infraction doesn’t provide for a meaningful deterrent against the unlawful blocking of a roadway, especially in the instance of a group making a political statement.
“We’ve seen individuals and groups shut down highways with little or no consequences, and it creates a significant risk to public safety,” Bouchard said. “Blocking a roadway is not merely an inconvenience. It has life and death ramifications for first responders that rely on open roads to reach people in need, and even a delay of minutes, which I’ve seen tragically as a former fatal accident investigator, means the difference between life and death and losing someone.”
There was some debate about whether the bill expressly prohibited protests or just groups of people. St. Germaine noted instances of parties forming on highways as a gimmick.
The substitute adopted by the committee on Wednesday changes the initial language from a group of 10 or more people to an assembly of individuals.
Bouchard said, however, that an assembly is not a clearly defined term, pulling from his time in the Legislature.
Kyle Zawacki, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, said his organization was opposed to the bill. He said the ACLU was deeply concerned about what the bill would mean for the free exercise of speech and the right to peacefully assemble.
“Demonstrations on public streets have long been utilized for political speech, marches, rallies. Protests all require a physical space to occupy in order to exist,” Zawacki said. “Michigan’s highways do not exist in a vacuum, and vehicular blockades are not a new form of protest, nor are the government’s frequent attempts to suppress these public demonstrations and silence dissent through police force and legal intimidation.”
Zawacki added that it was apparent that drivers hate to be inconvenienced when protests block streets.
“However, driving is not a right, it is a privilege,” Zawacki said. “Protesting, on the other hand, is a fundamental constitutional right.”
That comment started a debate between Zawacki and state Rep. Jay DeBoyer (R-Clay), who said that he and others have a fundamental right to move freely unimpeded through the state and across state lines.
“That has been affirmed over and over and over again by courts and the Supreme Court,” DeBoyer said. “I know that we’re not talking about lawful protest, we’re talking about unlawful protest. … There is a significant difference.”
Zawacki said he wanted to be clear that the ACLU’s position was that it was against the increase of penalties from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor. As to whether a roadway is a proper or protected venue for a protest, Zawacki noted Hague v. The Committee for Industrial Organization, a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1939, which spelled out that such a right does exist.
DeBoyer, undeterred, cited Saenz v. Roe, a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case. Although the Saenz ruling did reaffirm the right to free travel, the holding had other key components limited to the case, which had to do with residency requirements for welfare benefits in California. The ruling mostly held that “the right to travel prevents states from imposing durational residency requirements that withhold the privileges and immunities of a state’s citizens from people who have newly arrived in that state,” according to the legal information website Justia.
The case didn’t deal with the free travel rights of individuals throughout the U.S. unimpeded by roadway protesters, either.
This post contains content that was first published on Michigan Advance and republished here under a Creative Commons License.
