County Pulls Back from Heavy-Handed Attempt at Regulating ‘Behavior’ or ‘Objects’ at Polling and Public Grounds

If you need proof that democracy is messy, have a listen to Holly Albanese.

“I’ve been with the county 19 years, and I have seen it all, obviously, at the library,” Albanese said. In her role as library director, she’s had a front-row seat to the busiest early voting site in the county, and the site most favored by political candidates’ campaigning campouts. “Over the years, I’ve seen huge change. It used to be just signs, and then people lining the sidewalks. And over the years, it’s gotten just more congested, more people, and obviously the county is growing, so you’re going to get more people out there.




“And the library, because we have two sides to the building, the parking is kind of L shaped, they’re on both sides. And when they come now, it’s like a circus. There’s tents, tables, chairs, they have their coolers. They’re out there from early in the morning. And I know that there have been in the past some people setting up overnight, having their tents set up. I’ve been called at four in the morning to come out for issues with tents. We’ve had to go out because of arguments and potential fights on property. We’ve had to bring the police in. We’ve had car accidents because they park. There’s not enough parking spaces during this time, so they park all over, including on the grass and the swales along the roadway.”

But the Flagler County Commission’s latest grapple with the messiness of democracy led it Monday to postpone until after the election any plans to regulate campaign zones or other forms of speech on public property, as it had sought to do last month, not without some controversy.

On July 15 the commission took up a proposal ominously titled as a “Resolution Prohibiting Disruptive Behavior on County Property.” The proposal would have significantly tightened restrictions on campaign  activity that the commission first enacted in 2018, when it banned fixed signs on trees or walls and the parking of trucks and other oversize vehicles bearing big-size campaign ads on county parking lots. (Several candidates had figured out that they could take advantage of those lots for some free publicity.)




The proposed regulations would have prohibited the use of any device that amplifies sound, including bullhorns. It would have prohibited chairs, tables, tents, umbrellas and coolers. And it would have prohibited anyone from harassing patrons of public grounds or facilities–meaning campaign volunteers or candidates harassing voters or library patrons or patrons of the Community Center in Palm Coast or at the GSB.

While most candidates conduct themselves appropriately, some–you know who they are–can be quite obnoxious, rude and gross. But the county’s proposal was heavy-handed and made commissioners pause. Commissioner Donald O’Brien found some of the language “very subjective” and all-encompassing. He noted how some groups, such as religious groups, sometimes set up outside the library, quietly, unobtrusively, never interfering with anyone and only engaging with people who engage with them, or, alternately, people who gather petitions and need tables and chairs to do their work. “Where do you draw the line? It just, just to me, it just seems a little loose, and I have concerns about it,” O’Brien said.

Commissioner Dave Sullivan was equally concerned. “I’m very leery of doing anything that could be considered in any way infringing on the election process, where the state has defined a lot of the rules such as 150 foot limitation, and things like that,” he said, even if the proposal was not only about elections.

“Supposing we have a board of county commissioners or county administrator who doesn’t like somebody who’s running for office and might use the resolution to limit their ability to talk to voters,” he continued.  “What we don’t need in this county is some kind of a resolution that goes forward and it just evolves, all of a sudden we’re going to have court cases about people claiming that their rights have been infringed on. ‘I’m an invalid person running for office and I can’t stand up for more than five minutes and I want to be able to sit in a chair when I’m doing this,’ or ‘I want shade.’ I can’t come up with all the possibilities but I think there are a lot of things that could happen. With a resolution like this  it’ll just ultimately waste a lot of court time trying to get them resolved.”




The 2018 regulations did not lower the temperature of increasingly confrontational gatherings, as when, just before and during Covid, the grounds in front of the Government Services Building in Bunnell were the scene of loud, bitter demonstrations, including by hate groups confronting students demonstrating for gender rights or for the freedom to read. At elections, early voting sites at the GSB or at the library became small campgrounds. (See: “Hearts and Rainbows v. Satan and Lies as LGBTQ Advocates and Opponents Hold Neighboring Demonstrations,” and “Student Protesters Face Hail of Vile Obscenities, Taunts and Threats From Group Claiming to Speak For Children.”)

Commissioners in mid-July decided to rethink the proposal and get rid of the matronly language about “disruptive behavior.” But the resolution that returned in front of them on Monday was not much more to their comfort, especially as Assistant County Attorney Sean Moylan reminded them that state law prohibits certain restrictions on “soliciting” voters outside of a 150-foot radius from a polling place. Signs are considered solicitation, so they cannot be regulated beyond standard rules that would apply uniformly to the time, place and manner in which they are displayed.

The revised proposal would still allow the setting up of tents and chairs, but with more time restrictions. That done, why would the additional measures be needed, O’Brien asked? Because, Moylan said, “If someone were to stand in front of the GSB with a bullhorn and tell everyone entering the building that the moon is made of cheese, we can’t stop them. There’s nothing that stops amplified sound. If someone wanted to set up a camp to protest the war in Ukraine, for example, on our front lawn, is that what we want right now? There’s no rules in place. We don’t have designated sites for these First Amendment activities on the books.”

The notion of “designated sites” for First Amendment activities, also called “free speech zones,” have been criticized as forms of censorship. “As a general matter,” the ACLU notes, “fixed zones where protest is banned can create serious First Amendment issues. All too frequently, schools create ‘free-speech zones’ and police corral lawful protesters into out-of-the-way protesting areas where no one can hear them.” The county has no such zones just yet, but the proposal before the County Commission would have opened that door.




The resolution had been significantly watered down in the version presented Monday, for example by allowing tents, chairs, coolers and the rest of it during early voting periods. “The current resolutions before you only refer to physical objects and amplified sound, the use of amplified sound,” Moylan said. It would not have had the force of law, though violators could ultimately be trespassed from public property.

But the proposal seemed inappropriate to Andy Dance, who chairs the commission and is himself among the local candidates running–inappropriate because of its timing, during an election season, and because of its seeming target: “It could be interpreted to either counter people or or activity.” He has no opposition to perhaps regulating or prohibiting amplified sound, but not right now. Commissioners voted to postpone consideration until after the election.