Leonardo Angiulo: Mixing Politics with Supermarkets
Monday, October 13, 2014
In this case, the plaintiff went to the parking lot of a local supermarket in order to collect signatures for his candidacy to the Governor's Council. Considering that the gentleman needed 1000 certified names for an upcoming election, going to a busy point of commerce in the heart of his district made sense. Unfortunately, the management of the supermarket did not agree and informed the potential candidate of their policy which did not permit such action. In response, the plaintiff filed suit alleging a violation of equal ballot access under article 9 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and a violation of his civil rights using threats, intimidation or coercion as defined in MGL c. 12, §11I.
After the matter was dismissed by a trial court, the Supreme Judicial Court took up the issue. Their review carved the case into two questions with distinct answers: a) can a free-standing retail supermarket exclude political candidates from collecting signatures in their parking lot, and b) did the manager of this supermarket engage in behavior that constitutes a threat, intimidation or coercion?
When focusing on the first question, the court compared this factual scenario to the case of Batchelder v. Allied Stores Internation which allowed a candidate to solicit signatures in an orderly and quiet manner in the common areas of shopping malls. The majority in the Glovsky case found that this parking lot was no different from the points of ingress and egress, like hallways, of a mall. This point was supported by the fact that in non-urban settings all over the state, the local supermarket may be “one of the few places in which an individual soliciting signatures would be able to approach members of the public in large numbers.”
The court went on to balance the defendant's private property rights with the plaintiff's interest in soliciting signatures for public office. In finding in favor of the plaintiff the court compared the various stores found under one roof at the defendant's market, like a florist and bank, to those that might be found on one street in a town. To prevent the plaintiff from collecting signatures in this parking lot would be like preventing him from standing on the sidewalk in between the various shops. It would functionally prevent him from getting the signatures he needs because of how commerce occurs in our day. Where these facts did not put an undue burden on the defendant, the court found the plaintiff's interest prevailed.
While some recoil from any usurpation of any private property owner's rights, consider that this decision only applies to the parking lot and not the interior of the store itself. In addition, the court expressed some specific curative measures the supermarket could take to prevent their concerns of patrons being bothered or their markets being improperly connected to a particular candidate's campaign. The market could, for example, post signs explaining they were not associated or endorsing any political candidate their patrons encountered. In addition, a policy limiting the location, time and manner that nominating signatures get collected would also be acceptable.
The court ultimately found that by telling this candidate that he could not collect signatures at their supermarkets, the defendants had violated the law. The court also pointed out, however, that not every violation of article 9 was also a violation of the civil rights act. In order for the plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss their case must show there was both an interference, or attempted interference, with a constitutional or statutory right and that the defendant used threats, intimidation or coercion to do it.
To support his complaint, the plaintiff claimed a coercive fear of arrest if he stayed after being informed of the policy. When reviewing the facts, the court focused on how the defendant's agent in question was alleged to have simply stated what the policy was. Without the defendant actually threatening to call the police and seeking arrest the court found the plaintiff's own fear insufficient.
Our representative democracy requires people know their candidates and actively select them for the ballot. Given the fundamental nature of the right to free and open election it is, arguably, natural that there is a great public interest in candidates being able to interact with constituents in public during their day. Some might also argue that any degradation of private property rights must be vehemently objected too. There are still others who would say that encouraging grassroots strategies, like individual contact between candidates and the public, are meaningful ways to re-energize the political process and negate the influence of big money in campaigns. As far as the Supreme Judicial Court is concerned, supermarket's are a fair place for civic minded people to pursue their candidacy for public office.
Related Articles
- Leonardo Angiulo: Freedom of Information in Action
- Leonardo Angiulo: MA Criminal Justice Attorney Pay at Crisis Level
- Leonardo Angiulo: US Incarceration Rate May be Unsustainable
- Leonardo Angiulo: Supreme Court Rules Raging Bull Lawsuit to Go Another Round in Federal Court
- Leonardo Angiulo: Legally Speaking, What is Intent to Distribute?
- Leonardo Angiulo: U.S. Supreme Court Renews 2nd Amendment Debate
- Leonardo Angiulo: Medical Decision-Making in the Case of Children
- Leonardo Angiulo: The Impact of Parole on Murder Sentences
- Leonardo Angiulo: How State Law Can Be Used To Promote Clean Energy
- Leonard Angiulo: Evolving Status of Animals in the MA Legal System
- Leonardo Angiulo: Money in Politics
- Leonardo Angiulo: The Evolution of Federal Sentencing Guidelines
- Leonardo Angiulo: A Good Day for FBI, A Bad Day for Politicians
- Leonardo Angiulo: When a Car Accident Isn’t Just an Accident
- Leonardo Angiulo: Combating the Effects of Heroin Addiction
- Leonardo Angiulo: Difficult Divorces Can Be Even More Expensive Than You Think
- Leonardo Angiulo: Victim Rights in Massachusetts
- Leonardo Angiulo: Spotlight on the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board
- Leonardo Angiulo: Expunging Criminal Records for Victims of Identity Theft
- Leonardo Angiulo: Changing the Standard for Sealing Criminal Records in MA
- Leominster Hospital Registered Nurses File Charges Over Staff Cuts
- Leonardo Angiulo: Citizens Recording Official Police Business
- Leonardo Angiulo: Dissecting the Proposed MA Firearm Legislation
- Leonardo Angiulo: Further Refining the Investigation of Marijuana Offenses
- Leonardo Angiulo: Mass. Appeals Court Explains Expert Testimony in Drug and Drunk Driving
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It