Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Commentary / Police need to learn difference between soliciting and canvassing

Police need to learn difference between soliciting and canvassing

opinion-WEB

Let’s be clear. Canvassing is not soliciting. Still, many remain confused over the difference between the two, including the Phoenix Police Department.

My canvasser, a person of color with a significant developmental disability, was recently stopped when Phoenix police rolled up in two squad cars and detained him for looking “suspicious” and “soliciting.” My canvasser was respectful and complied with every command the officers gave. Regardless, after running his state identification, Phoenix police told him he did not have “an ID for what he was doing” and demanded he leave the area. After the incident, the canvasser was distraught for hours. He has remained anxious about canvassing since the episode, despite the fact he did nothing wrong.

Garrick McFadden

Garrick McFadden

I reported the incident to the Phoenix Police Department and was repeatedly told the canvasser was soliciting. The Phoenix Municipal Code clearly defines a solicitor as a person who goes door to door to speak to residents uninvited for a “commercial purpose”
(§ 23-140); solicitors also require a government-issued identification (§ 23-142). Canvassing is not even remotely commercial. It is used in politics to engage voters at their doors about an election, issue, or candidate. Regardless, even if it was, my canvasser provided his identification and was still told to stop.

If Phoenix’s solicitation laws did include political canvassing, those laws would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, the high court struck down an ordinance that lumped in all door-to-door activity with soliciting, finding that “[t]he mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns. It is offensive — not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society[.]”

This incident did not have to happen. The police involved could easily have determined that my canvasser was not soliciting simply by looking at his clipboard with my petition (the petition includes my name and address), my campaign literature (which includes the office telephone number and other contact information), or the application on his phone, which includes the list of registered voter households that he was sent to. The officer, however, did none of this. Instead, without any basis, he ordered the canvasser to cease activity and immediately depart the neighborhood.

There is now more going on in Arizona politics than ever before. Races that were never actively contested are now not just contested, but contested by multiple candidates. Canvassing is an integral part of the democratic process, without which candidates would likely not be able to even get the petition signatures they need to be on the ballot. And that means that voters, some for the first time, will have not just contact, but repeated contact, with candidates. There will be events, door knocks, phone calls, and texts, all done and made to inform Arizonans about the election and to encourage them to participate in it. Needless to say, Phoenix police should not insert itself into this process. No police department should be terminating legal canvassing activity.

I filed a complaint about the incident. In doing so, I asked that Phoenix police educate officers about the difference between political canvassing and solicitation. The persons I spoke to showed no interest in such education. I await a response to the complaint.

— Garrick McFadden, a Democrat, is a candidate for Arizona’s 6th Congressional District.

___________________________________________________________

The views expressed in guest commentaries are those of the author and are not the views of the Arizona Capitol Times.

2 comments

  1. I am concerned about abuse of power and the police harassing people. Thank you for this article and lets see if you get a response .
    i hesitate to call the police because they seems to go by ‘who is involved ” and turn the investigation on the caller .
    ALso seems to be a real problem with officer ability to write reports accurately.

  2. For years everyone is told “if you see something, say something”. It is clear that this long ad campaign is finally working. A canvasser needs incredibly thick skin because he/she is invading a neighborhood for a purpose that is out of the ordinary (maybe once per year). While the police need to do a better job identifying the situation, the canvasser needs to realize that the police cannot know every single situation out there. Moreover, there is a significant war on cops being popularized by the media and the media’s political party. This popularization escalates otherwise benign situations into serious situations. So, instead of taking the easy road and pointing the fingers at the cop for following up on a citizen’s call who “saw something” and is now “saying something”, let’s take the road less traveled and communicate. If the rank and file officer does not understand, move along and follow up with his supervisor, the supervisor will understand and the canvasser will get an apology. It should never, ever be more serious than that. PS, to the canvasser, police officers are voters too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

Vote concept; handdrawn ballot box on a green chalkboard

Nearly half of eligible voters in Arizona don’t cast ballots

The issue of voting is complex, challenging and confounding. But with the report identifying certain gaps in the electorate, it is hoped that opportunities will surface as ways to collectively address Arizona’s voting crisis in a concerted effort to enhance a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people.