Opinion ID: 25922
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutionality of the Housing Authority Regulations

Text: 13 The determination that the HACEP developments are nonpublic fora does not end our inquiry. We must evaluate the regulations at issue under the standard established by the Court for restrictions on speech in nonpublic fora. The government may regulate expressive activities in a nonpublic forum as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view. 16 We recognize that the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government. 17 An equally commanding principle, however, is that [t]he Government, even when acting in its proprietary capacity, does not enjoy absolute freedom from First Amendment constraints. 18 Applying the aforementioned standard to the present dispute, we conclude that the trespass after warning statute, as applied to political candidates, constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the residents' first amendment rights.
14 We agree with the district court that Rules D2 and D5 are viewpoint neutral because they apply to all nonresidents who seek to go door-to-door distributing literature. HACEP proscribes door-to-door campaigning regardless of party affiliation or the viewpoint espoused by the nonresident. Accordingly, the regulations are content-neutral in our constitutional evaluation.
15 With due pause and after careful consideration we disagree with trial court that Rules D2 and D5 constitute reasonable regulations when applied to political candidates and their campaign volunteers. The trespass regulation, as applied to political campaigning, strikes at the very core of our democratic system. Mere legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions. 19 For many individuals, door-to-door political volunteers provide the main or only link to the election process, especially with respect to local elections where candidates may lack the resources for extensive media campaigns. In recognizing the importance of political canvassing, the Supreme Court stated: Of course, as every person acquainted with political life knows, door to door campaigning is one of the most accepted techniques of seeking popular support, while the circulation of nominating papers would be greatly handicapped if they could not be taken to the citizens in their homes. Door to door distribution of circulars is essential to the poorly financed causes of little people. 20 We do not reject HACEP's concern that non-residents commit the majority of crimes on development property, nor its belief that combating crime is a legitimate purpose for the trespass after warning regulation. We conclude, however, that the manner in which HACEP seeks to accomplish its goal of crime prevention is unreasonable under the circumstances herein presented. 16 As noted by the Court, consideration of a forum's special attributes is relevant to the constitutionality of a regulation since the significance of the governmental interest must be assessed in light of the characteristic nature and function of the particular forum involved. 21 HACEP operates housing developments, where people walk to and from their residences, talk with their neighbors, and generally conduct themselves like individuals in any other neighborhood in El Paso. As such, the citizens who reside in the HACEP developments deserve access to political information in the same manner as other citizens of El Paso. HACEP apparently acknowledges the importance of allowing political discourse because it concedes that De La O, a resident, can walk door-to-door expressing his views and distributing literature in support of any candidate. The sole qualification, compliance with the strictures in Rule D5, 22 poses a requirement that, if placed upon nonresident political candidates or volunteers, likely would remedy any safety concerns caused by unknown individuals campaigning at inappropriate hours. 17 We note with some focus that the record reflects that HACEP does not ban all nonresidents, as the trespass regulation does not apply to certain individuals. These include members' guests and visitors, and such other persons who have legitimate business on the premises, e.g., law enforcement and other government personnel, utility service workers, HACEP contractors, and others as authorized by HACEP. That the regulation lists certain groups as examples indicates to us that HACEP contemplates the existence of other groups, unmentioned in the regulation, who fall under the category of individuals with legitimate business on the premises. We are persuaded beyond peradventure that the wholesale exclusion of political candidates and their volunteers from this category unreasonably and unnecessarily interferes with what may well be the primary connection between many of HACEP's residents and the democratic process. 23 18 Finally, [i]n considering legislation which thus limits the dissemination of knowledge, we must 'be astute to examine the effect of the challenged legislation'. . .. 24 The effect of the trespass regulation, as applied in the matter before us, is to isolate a significant portion of the El Paso community from one of the most time-honored and effective means of political discourse. Although HACEP's outright ban on door-to-door campaigning by nonresidents is unreasonable, requiring political campaigners to seek the same authorization as other individuals that have legitimate business on the premises would be reasonable in light of HACEP's goals of preventing crime by nonresidents. HACEP's Housing Managers need merely check to ensure that the campaign volunteer's credentials are valid. Such identification might properly be denied if the volunteer reasonably lacked sufficient credentials. This would provide an adequate balance between protecting residents from dangerous imposters and promoting political discourse: While door to door distributors of literature may be either a nuisance or a blind for criminal activities, they may also be useful members of society engaged in the dissemination of ideas in accordance with the best tradition of free discussion. 25 19 We recognize that in Daniel v. City of Tampa, the Eleventh Circuit reached an opposite conclusion with respect to a nearly identical statute, Florida Statute Chapter 810.09. 26 Our brethren concluded that Florida's housing authority complexes are nonpublic fora and that enforcement of the statute is a reasonable means of combating the rampant drug and crime problems within the Housing Authority property. 27 While not unmindful of the conflict created by our differing interpretation of the first amendment issues implicated herein, the nature of the injustice inflicted by enforcement of the regulation in this case warrants reversal of the summary judgment before us. While not a public forum, Sun Plaza houses citizens of El Paso who deserve access to political information and an unfettered role in the democratic process. The values at stake are a precious cornerstone in our nation's political foundation. 20 This court has characterized the freedom of speech and that of the press as fundamental personal rights and liberties. The phrase is not an empty one and was not lightly used. It reflects the belief of the framers of the Constitution that exercise of the rights lies at the foundation of free government by free men. It stresses, as do many opinions of this court, the importance of preventing the restriction of enjoyment of these liberties. 28