We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight

March 23, 2009 -- Approximately 70 adults and students rallied at Bedford City Hall (Bedford, TX) to protest the juvenile daytime curfew ordinance. The day marked the six-month anniversary of the Bedford city council's decision to enact the curfew on September 23, 2008.

At the same time, nearly twenty miles away, another group of protesters rallied at the Dallas City Hall, to express their opposition to an expanded daytime curfew being proposed in Dallas. The rally came two days before the first of two public hearings in Dallas on the issue.

Many of the protesters at both rallies wore "Ditch the Daytime Curfew" shirts, and waved signs that read, "Ditch the Daytime Curfew" and "Fight Crime Not Freedom." Some people even made their own signs with messages like, "Public School Parent Against the Daytime Curfew."

The twin rallies generated media attention from well over a dozen media outlets, and served to thrust the issue into the national news (ex. Wall Street Journal) with the heated controversy over the issue in Dallas.

The rallies were shining examples of what can happen when communities of people come together to make their voices heard. Some might label these demonstrations as "rebelling against government," others, myself included, prefer to use the more accurate term: citizens participating in the democratic process.

As this political battle has escalated over the previous months, it has become more and more evident that reasoned and well-researched arguments are not enough to convince these councils that curfews are neither effective nor wanted by its citizens.

Officials in both Bedford and Dallas have completely disregarded the compelling facts that show that daytime curfews are not only duplicative (state truancy laws and criminal codes already exist) and unnecessary, but curfews do absolutely nothing to solve the juvenile crime problem or underlying issues related to truancy. In fact, curfews have been shown in study after study to actually exacerbate those problems.

Additionally, daytime curfews violate parental rights to direct the activities of their children. Curfews also stifle individual freedom, and can result in civil rights lawsuits against cities which implement them inappropriately.

"We’re against the government intrusion into parental rights to dictate the activities of our own kids and the punishment of a whole community of kids . . . in a misguided attempt to catch a couple of truants," said Anne Gebhart in a Star-Telegram article which came out the day of the rally.

The curfew criminalizes children just for being in public during daytime hours, even if no crime is being committed or suspected.

Bedford Mayor Jim Story told the Star-Telegram that he does not see the ordinance as a violation of civil liberties, and said that it has been effective in keeping students in school.

According to what truancy study and numbers are you referring, Mr. Mayor? And since when does the Constitution mandate that a certain segment of the population be presumed "guilty until proven innocent"? Does our Pledge of Allegiance proclaim "liberty and justice" for only those over the age of 16? The way I see it, a law with nearly a dozen "defenses to prosecution" seems a little weak in its attempt to pose as a fair and just law.

Mayor Story was also quoted in the article as saying, "We do not feel in any way that this ordinance harasses or targets anyone in any way... All indications show this is a very good ordinance."

Feelings are not facts, and "feeling" a certain way about something does not change the facts. The fact is, the potential certainly exists for the ordinance to be used to harass and target people. This has been shown in city after city where police officers, such as those in Houston, have used the ordinance to selectively target minority areas, or waited outside school buildings to issue tickets to kids arriving late to school.

There are many examples of police officers who have overstepped their bounds and abused their discretion to cite students who were outside during curfew hours for very legitimate reasons, even reasons protected by the first amendment. You don't have to look any further than Austin, Texas:

In March 2006, high school students hit the streets in Round Rock as part of a series of nationwide immigration protests. Over 200 kids were arrested for violating the city's daytime curfew. A federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of several parents and about 50 students who claimed the arrests were unlawful.

According to Jim Harrington of Texas Civil Rights Project, "A large number of them were charged for violating the youth curfew, even though the youth curfew has an exemption in it for First Amendment activities, and of course this is a classic First Amendment activity."

Did you get that? Even though there was an exemption in the curfew ordinance for First Amendment activities, that exemption was completely disregarded by police. Here's one of many articles about the story.

Bedford Mayor Jim Story told the Star-Telegram that "being home-schooled or out with parents does not violate the ordinance."

More accurately, those situations are actually considered defenses to prosecution, Mr. Mayor, which simply means that a police officer can use his discretion to issue a citation regardless. An otherwise innocent family would then have to go to court to try to prove their defense.

Never mind that fact that there are many legitimate reasons for a teenager to be out in public during school hours even without their parent, not the least of which may include a scenario where a homeschool child is finished with their school work, or a family decides to take a vacation and the child is outside playing, or a teen drives himself/herself to work. A public school child who is exempt from exams can also be the target of this ordinance. Any minor under 17 who is outside for any reason can be a potential target.

According to the article, "Gebhart said that the way the ordinance is written, police officers have discretion as to whether or not to issue a citation. It would be up to families to fight the issue in court, which could be more of a financial burden than the $500 fine issued with the citation."

Reasoned arguments don't seem to work. Pointing out constitutionality infringments does not seem to sway those in leadership. The message the councils seem to be sending us is: "Don't confuse us with the facts."

The lesson to be learned is this: Voters far outnumber elected officials. Voters should, therefore, use their voting power to inspire their leaders to action.

Campaigns like this are won at the grass-roots level. With numbers comes power. With power comes influence. With influence comes change.

The USA is not about government dictating to the people how it does things. The USA is all about citizens holding their government officials accountable and making sure those leaders observe and protect the rights established in the constitution.

In the historic words of John Paul Jones: We have not yet begun to fight!!

Let's continue to send that message loud and clear to our elected officials while we still have the liberty to do so.