Following the early-morning protest at a congressman’s residence and recent chalking incidents, the Highland Park City Council is looking to implement ordinances that would ban protests in residential areas and ban protests during specific time windows.
The city council held a “Committee of the Whole” discussion at 5:30 p.m. on July 15 regarding recent incidents within the city, a review of local ordinances and state statutes, and policy considerations.
Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering said that the policy considerations are “aimed at enhancing the safety and security of our community.”
The council discussed the early morning June 29 incident in the 300 block of Woodland Road in front of U.S. Congressman Brad Schneider’s private residence.
Police officers encountered 40 protesters carrying banners and shouting pro-Palestinian and anti-semitic chants using loudspeakers and drums at around 2:43 a.m. that morning, city officials said.
The protest was directed at Schneider’s residence and the crowd dispersed in around 30 minutes. No arrests were made.
Schneider released a statement on July 15, saying he received an “incredible outpouring of concern and support” following the protest.
“Hate has no place in Highland Park. It was particularly appalling that such an attack occurred in the cover of darkness in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood on the Jewish Sabbath,” Schneider said.
The congressman said that the protest “literally woke up and terrorized the neighborhood.”
Schneider commended the Highland Park Police Department for their response, saying “they expertly defused an incredibly volatile situation swiftly and peacefully.”
The city council also discussed two recent incidents in downtown Highland Park – July 5 and July 10 – where pro-Palestinian chalk messages sparked tensions amongst the public.
Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering shared a message at the beginning of the meeting, acknowledging that the “vitriol and stories that we have all been hearing are painful.”
“As we navigate through these challenging times, it is important to recognize the impact these narratives have had on each of us, our staff, and the community,” Rotering said.
Rotering spoke about the personal backgrounds of city officials, recognizing that most of the council members, along with other officials, are Jewish.
“Six of the seven City Council members are Jewish. You may not know this, but of the seven members, six of us are Jewish. Individually and collectively, we deeply feel the pain, the hurt, the fear, the anger that comes with generational trauma, each with our stories of our own families, the Holocaust, pogroms, and antisemitism,” she said.
“The seventh member, though not Jewish, has lived in this community for over twenty years and grew up in another country, under a military dictatorship, with the constant threat of domestic terrorism from the Shining Path.”
“Our City Manager fled her native country with her family as a child during a civil war, her own home having been bombed. She wears a necklace given to her by her mother containing a piece of shrapnel from that bomb. In support of the Jewish people, she also wears a Star of David bracelet on her wrist.”
“When he was a 7-year old boy, our Police Chief’s father, also a police officer, was taken hostage, beaten and then shot in the head point blank and spent months in a coma, bearing the impacts of that violence for the rest of his life. He died when our Chief was 16 years old,” Rotering said.
“If there was ever a group that understands the pain of this community, we are that group. We each understand the fear of being intimidated because of who we are or extreme external circumstances beyond our control.”
“I just wanted to ensure that everyone in this room has this background and it is in our public record,” the mayor said.
Rotering said that city officials’ backgrounds make them “uniquely qualified” to address concerns from the June 29 protest and the chalking incidents.
Highland Park Police Chief Lou Jogmen provided an overview of the recent incidents and how police responded.
Highland Park City Manager Ghida Neukirch and Highland Park Deputy Corporation Counsel Hart Passman, who legally represents several other local government entities in Illinois, reviewed local ordinances and state statutes that may be applicable to the recent incidents.
Eight city ordinances were brought up: damage to sidewalks (Chapter 93, Article 2, Section 93.130); streets to be clear and free of obstructions (Chapter 93, Article 4, Section 93.300); the definition of graffiti (Chapter 131, Section 131.001); criminal damage to property (Chapter 131, Section 131.025); disorderly conduct (Chapter 132, Section 132.001); street lounging (Chapter 132, Section 132.005); congregating on street corners; blocking passage (Chapter 132, Section 132.040); and obstruction of street (Chapter 132, Section 132.045).
Three criminal offenses within the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) were brought up: residential picketing (720 ILCS 5/21.1-2), a Class B misdemeanor; obstructing a peace officer (720 ILCS 5/31-1), a Class A misdemeanor; and disorderly conduct (720 ILCS 5/26-1), which ranges from a misdemeanor to a felony.
During the meeting, the city council discussed several policy considerations: establishing a local prohibition to protest in front of a residence or residential district, prohibiting all protests from dusk to dawn, increasing the fine for blocking a street or sidewalk, prohibiting masks for any rallies or protests, requiring organizers to notify the city prior to protesting, rallying or chalking, treating chalking as graffiti and prohibiting chalking in all business districts on public rights of way.
Passman provided the city council with principles of content neutrality and standards the government must satisfy when considering regulations against individuals’ right to First Amendment protected speech.
“We cannot regulate speech on the basis of content,” Passman told the city council. “But time, place, and manner, we can,” he added, referring to Supreme Court precedent on time, place, and manner restrictions to speech and other forms of expressive activity
“Whatever the city decides to do, whether under its existing laws or under any new regulations that the council may adopt, our recommendation is to avoid making decisions on the basis of the content of speech. It’s a very, very, very high standard,” Passman said.
Passman raised concerns if the council decides to amend existing local ordinances to prohibit protesting in front of a residence and in a residential district.
“In a community like Highland Park, most of our city is residential, if you look geographically. And I want to be sure that we would be leaving ample alternative avenues of communication,” Passman said, referring to the third prong the government must fulfill when regulating speech.
Council Member Anthony Blumberg raised the idea of designating an area in the city that would allow protests to occur as a possible alternative avenue.
Council Member Andrés Tapia was in favor of prohibiting protests in residential districts.
“Directionally, I don’t think that anybody living in Highland Park should feel vulnerable or exposed to protests in a residential area, and so I would be in favor of finding the right wording for that that would be defensible,” Tapia said.
Council Member Annette Lidawer was also in favor of prohibiting protests in residential districts, adding that “the speech should be in our business districts and away from our residential.”
“I think it’s very necessary that we have our own laws in addition to the state’s, so that our city, our law enforcement officials immediately have access and know exactly what it is,” Lidawer said.
Rotering said, “The state law [on residential picketing] is specific to a targeted residence. I see no reason for protests to just be generally in a residential neighborhood. People aren’t looking for that kind of chaos outside of their house, it just doesn’t make sense.”
Council Member Barisa Meckler Bruckman agreed with the other council members, suggesting that the city’s central business zoning be designated as an area where protests would be allowed.
Council Members Kim Stone and Yumi Ross, who joined the meeting by phone, were also in favor of prohibiting protests in residential districts.
The council also discussed an amendment to prohibit protests from dusk to dawn.
Passman brought up the idea of using the same hours the city already uses for their nuisance and noise regulations, which are 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. when the following day is a weekday and 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. when the following day is a weekend or a legal holiday.
“Or, in the alternative, you could just have it be the same hours seven days a week. Who cares if it’s the weekend or a holiday, you don’t get a free ride until 10 o’clock to scream, you know?” Rotering responded.
Passman said that it would be “reasonable” for a municipality to prohibit protests overnight anywhere, but cautioned about prohibiting protests based on both time and place.
“We have to allow ample alternative channels for communication. The more we restrict what those are, the more we might be pushing it too far,” Passman said.
Passman also encouraged the council to consider when Highland Park residents leave and return to the area for their work commute.
“If someone wants to protest and Highland Park residents are not here as much during the day as they are in the evening, does that change the equation of what’s allowable or not?” he said.
Blumberg asked Passman to clarify at what point “hate speech” or “hateful speech” can turn into unprotected speech.
“Where the line generally lies is not so much with hate speech or hateful speech but true threats,” Passman said. “It is a fact – and there was an illusion to the Skokie marches 40 plus years ago – hate speech is protected speech, as a general proposition.”
“One has the constitutional right to be a bigot. You can’t necessarily act on it, but you have the right to do that,” Passman added.
Passman also said that courts don’t uphold speech that “becomes threatening” or “becomes something that’s closer to a true threat,” alluding to the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can prohibit speech if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
“Whatever we decide to do in Highland Park, it should be administered and enforced on a content-neutral basis,” Passman said.
“I like having our local ordinance on the prohibition because it gives us more agency to take charge of enforcement and procedural things,” Tapia said. “I don’t want to depend on the state to decide whether they’re going to enforce it or prosecute it.”
Lidawer suggested that the time range for prohibiting protests be the same as the city’s curfew hours.
Bruckman was in favor of a dusk-to-dawn prohibition on protests, which would allow the times to adapt to the changing daylight hours across different seasons.
Tapia also agreed that a strict time frame would not account for the changes in daylight hours throughout the year.
“If we’re trying to have a safer community, then darkness is a threat, can be a threat,” Tapia said.
Stone was in favor of either a dusk-to-dawn prohibition or the same hours as the noise ordinance.
“I think the curfew hours are too late to me. If somebody is protesting outside somewhere at midnight or it’s 11:30 p.m., there’s a lot of people asleep. I think it’s more like quiet hours and I think that’s not a reasonable time for someone to be out protesting,” Stone said.
The council collectively agreed that protests in the city should be prohibited overnight, though there is still discussion to be had regarding the exact timeframe that they should be prohibited.
Ross leaned more in favor of a dusk-to-dawn prohibition, though she raised questions about how that would be applicable to candlelight vigils.
The council briefly discussed increasing the fine for blocking a street or sidewalk.
With the current ordinance, violators are generally fined $25 to $500, Neukirch said.
The council was in favor of increasing the maximum fine to $1,000.
The council then moved on to discuss prohibiting masks for any rallies or protests.
“Certainly, a mask ban, if applied without reference to content, is itself a content-free regulation. We would have to use that for all types of events,” Passman said.
Passman was unsure regarding how a prohibition on masks for protests would be challenged, if implemented.
“Someone in this country is going to be a test case for this,” Passman said.
Blumberg was in favor of prohibiting masks during protests, saying, “Putting the constitutional issue aside, I’m very comfortable with the idea.”
“I understand there are religious rights involved, but again, if you are going to engage in a protest … there are certain balances in favor of being safe and secure in our residences, in our person, that allowing masked protests seem to be to impinge on,” Blumberg added.
“You’re protesting in public. We have a right to know who you are, in my opinion, as part of our right to be secure in our effects and to keep track of what’s going on with these potential kinds of activities.”
Tapia was uncertain of prohibiting masks during protests, raising questions like how it would be enforced and how religious exceptions would apply.
“Coming from my experience growing up in a totalitarian government country for 12 years … when people protested against the government that was totalitarian, people did mask because it was a form of protecting their identity from prosecution from a totalitarian government that would throw you into jail without due process,” Tapia said.
Lidawer said in response, “I do have faith that we, at least right now, are not a totalitarian government.”
Lidawer added that she believes protesters are “hiding behind masks because they don’t want to be questioned about their activities, they want to engage in hate speech, and they don’t want to have any consequences to bear for chanting things or taking people out of bed in the middle of the night.”
“I don’t want to enable them,” Lidawer said, adding that she is in favor of prohibiting masks during protests while taking into account religious rights and illness.
Bruckman was also in favor of prohibiting masks during protests, besides religious and medical reasons.
Both Lidawer and Bruckman argued that prohibiting masks during protests would also help law enforcement in prosecution.
“I think it’s incredibly important that we help law enforcement do their jobs and we protect people,” Lidawer said.
Stone was conflicted on the matter because she does not want Highland Park to be the “test case.”
“I would rather wait and see if other communities take this on,” Stone said.
Ross was ambivalent about prohibiting masks during protests, saying that there needs to be further discussion on the matter.
With four council members in favor of prohibiting masks during protests and three undecided, Rotering said the city would “continue to look at this and figure out what it would look like if we did move forward with that kind of ordinance.”
The council skipped discussing whether to require notice prior to protests, rallies or chalking due to time and instead discussed chalking specifically.
Blumberg said that although he does not support the recent pro-Palestinian chalk messages, he said it is “the difficult price of living in a democracy.”
“The consequence is if we prohibit it, we have to prohibit all of it. I think that’s hard for me,” Blumberg added.
Some residents had raised questions about why the city did not clean up the recent pro-Palestinian chalk messages immediately.
Passman said that cleaning chalk messages just because it is “undesirable” would be considered content-based enforcement of expression.
Tapia said that prohibiting chalking in Highland Park’s central business district (CBD) could cause issues because it can open the door to regulating other methods of expression that do not deface property, like cardboard and masking tape.
“If we try to forbid chalking … then where do we stop? Tapia said. “I think we would be chasing different media, rather than tackling the real issue which is the potential violence and all the other things that we’re talking about.”
Lidawer said she would be in favor of designating a portion of the central business district where chalking would be prohibited to be “more welcoming” and preserve the beautification of the downtown area.
Lidawer also said she received many phone calls from residents who were upset at the chalking incidents.
“I don’t want to see people upset at what they have to look at,” she said.
“Instead of asking people to take things into their own hands or be miserable in their own town, I think that for the beautification of our town, we carve out that niche in the business districts that we do not permit chalking,” she added.
Bruckman, on the other hand, was not in favor of prohibiting chalking in the business districts, saying that most cases of chalking are “innocent” and “fun.”
Stone also was not in favor of prohibiting chalking in the business districts, arguing that restricting chalking does not address the underlying issue.
Ross echoed similar beliefs and said that prohibiting chalking would open other avenues for people to express themselves.
“Overall the use of chalking has been a community pulling together, not pulling apart,” Ross said.
Rotering said that in 2020, the Village of Glencoe also considered restricting chalking in their central business district, but ended up not moving forward with it.
Most council members were not in favor of prohibiting chalking in the city’s business districts.
In summary, a majority of the city council supported a prohibition on protests in residential districts, prohibiting protests during a specific time frame and increasing the fine for blocking a street or sidewalk.
“With respect to establishing or enhancing local regulation with State counterparts, the City Council expressed support for strengthening or enacting local regulations to complement those of the State and to be stricter, where possible,” the city said in their summary of the council discussion.
Officials will continue to consider whether to prohibit masks at protests or rallies and consider the possibility of requesting organizers to provide informational notice to the city prior to a protest or rally.
A majority of the city council supported keeping the city’s current approach to non-permanent chalking, which is to continue to allow chalking on public rights-of-way and not remove chalking outside of regular maintenance operations.
City officials will work with their legal counsel to draft documents on the three initiatives that a majority of the council agreed upon.
“These items are tentatively scheduled for the next City Council meeting on July 29, 2024,” the city said.
City officials said individuals are welcome to email the city council at [email protected] with their feedback and ideas.