Source: Politics<\/p>\n
Republican state lawmakers across the country are pushing legislatures to pass dozens of anti-protest measures, sparking concerns among Democrats and others that states will begin cracking down harder on racial justice and anti-police brutality demonstrations.<\/p>\n
Republicans in Alabama, Arizona and Kentucky introduced bills that would create harsher penalties for crimes committed during violent protests, including blocking a roadway and destroying property. Conservative lawmakers in Ohio and Iowa are also pushing similar legislation that would remove legal liabilities for drivers who hit protesters during riots.<\/p>\n
In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis hailed the state\u2019s \u201canti-riot\u201d legislation that he signed into law on Monday, saying that he hoped the bill would serve as an example for the rest of the nation. The \u201cCombating Public Disorder\u201d bill enhances penalties for people convicted of already unlawful acts, like battery and assault, if committed during a violent demonstration.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is the strongest anti-rioting, pro-law enforcement piece of legislation in the country,\u201d DeSantis said during the bill\u2019s signing. \u201cThere\u2019s nothing even close.\u201d<\/p>\n
Following the summer\u2019s widespread racial justice protests after the killing of George Floyd, Republican lawmakers in 34 states have introduced sweeping anti-riot bills, many of which would enhance sentences for those convicted of crimes at protests that turn violent, according to the International Center for Not-For Profit Law. Some would also make it much more difficult for cities to attempt to pull funds out of its local law enforcement\u2019s budget, a nod to the \u201cdefund the police\u201d movement.<\/p>\n
Democrats and civil rights groups have spent months warning that these bills will infringe on citizens\u2019 rights to protest, affect rates of incarceration and could be an attempt to silence Black Lives Matter and other racial justice protesters.<\/p>\n
Florida Democratic state Rep. Kevin Chambliss called his state\u2019s anti-riot legislation, HB1, \u201cthe scariest piece of legislation I have seen in my life.\u201d<\/p>\n
Elly Page, a senior legal adviser at the International Center for Not-For Profit Law, has tracked anti-protest laws<\/a> for about four years, beginning primarily in the wake of the Dakota Access Pipeline demonstrations. The current collection of bills, she says, is a clear legislative backlash to the racial justice protest movement.<\/p>\n She noted that states didn\u2019t need to experience riots or widespread looting last summer in order to press ahead with anti-protest legislation.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are a dozen bills that have been introduced in Oklahoma,\u201d Page said. \u201cObviously, the protests \u2014 especially last summer \u2014 took place in almost every state in the country, if not every state. But certainly, massive ones \u2014 the kind of ones that these bills are targeting \u2014 you didn\u2019t see widespread looting in Tulsa. You could say the same for Florida.\u201d<\/p>\n So far, Tennessee, Florida and Oklahoma are the only states to pass \u201canti-riot\u201d legislation. Oklahoma\u2019s governor approved its \u201canti-riot\u201d bill, HB 1674<\/a>, on Wednesday.<\/p>\n Many of the sponsors of these bills maintain that they\u2019re not targeting peaceful protesters but those responsible for violent riots that lead to looting and widespread property damage. However, research shows that the vast majority<\/a> of demonstrations over the summer were peaceful.<\/p>\n \u201cThis country was built on lawful protest, and it\u2019s something that we must maintain \u2014 our citizens\u2019 right to do so,\u201d Kentucky Republican State Sen. Danny Carroll said earlier this year at a hearing<\/a>. Carroll sponsored Kentucky\u2019s measure in the state\u2019s Senate. \u201cWhat this deals with are those who cross the line and commit criminal acts.\u201d<\/p>\n But critics say that these bills are an overreach that will end up doing much more than what bill sponsors say they will. Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, in a statement to POLITICO, wrote that the current slate of legislature would, if approved, grant immunity to those who attack peaceful protesters and shifts the focus from pro-Trump supporters who raided the Capitol on Jan. 6.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are seeing Republicans conflate our movement with the white supremacist rioters who attacked the Capitol,\u201d Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation stated. \u201cThis poses a real and direct threat to Black people who are organizing for liberation.\u201d<\/p>\n Democratic lawmakers have also criticized these bills because of the impact enhanced sentences will have on the country\u2019s existing mass incarceration rate. By June last year, the tally of arrested protesters had already reached 10,000<\/a> on charges such as violating curfew, burglary and looting. It\u2019s unclear how many, if any, were convicted.<\/p>\n Increased jail time means that states will have to spend more money housing inmates, which can affect state economies. The ACLU of Florida estimates<\/a> that longer prison time could lead anywhere from $2.7 to $7.2 million in increased spending for the state. In total, the estimated economic impact of this bill could cost the state, and its residents, up to $67.1 million.<\/p>\n Gary Daniels, the chief lobbyist for the ACLU of Ohio, also pointed out the expansive nature of some of these \u201canti-riot\u201d bills, including one of several that were introduced in Ohio<\/a>, that he says would create an ambiguous definition of \u201criot,\u201d or taunting a police officer, if enacted. The vagueness would leave both demonstrators and law enforcement confused as to what actions are actually arrestable offenses.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen [these bills] are not specific enough, problems arise,\u201d Daniels said. \u201cAnd that\u2019s particularly true with free speech and policing policies and laws. You leave it open to interpretation so that nobody involved knows what is illegal, and what is not, what falls under the bill, and what does not.”<\/p>\n