Colorado Capitol Changes Stance on Political Attire: Free Speech Debate Ignites

The Colorado Capitol’s recent decision to reverse its ban on political attire sparks crucial conversations about free speech and civil liberties.

At a Glance

Colorado Capitol removed the ban on political apparel in its galleries.
Change followed a lawsuit threat from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Jeff Hunt was initially removed for wearing a “Pro-Life U” sweatshirt.
The ban was deemed to violate First Amendment freedom-of-speech protections.
The policy change was confirmed on August 14.

Colorado Capitol’s Shift on Political Attire

The Colorado Capitol has abolished its controversial ban on political attire, following public outcry. The policy reversal came after the ejection of Jeff Hunt, a right-wing radio host, from the statehouse for wearing a “Pro-Life U” sweatshirt. The decision calls into question the balance between maintaining decorum and protecting free speech.

The new policy took effect on August 14, allowing political attire in the House and Senate galleries. The decision was made after legal pressures from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Legislative spokespeople noted the ban’s rescission but did not elaborate on the reasons for the change.

Before the change, signs and apparel expressing political statements were prohibited to avoid conflicts. The rule’s overreach became evident when it inconsistently allowed students to wear “Angels Against Gun Violence” shirts yet excluded pro-life attire. Jeff Hunt, who advocated against abortion-rights bills, was removed from the gallery on March 21, 2023, intensifying public debate about the rule’s enforcement.

3/ "I am thrilled at this outcome," said Jeff. "Now, Coloradans are free to share their voices, particularly at the State Capitol, where the work of the people takes place." https://t.co/jIeE3zn58s

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) August 14, 2024

Legal Actions Leading to Policy Reversal

Hunt’s case garnered support from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), who threatened to file a lawsuit against Capitol authorities. FIRE contended that the ban was an overreach and presented arbitrary enforcement opportunities. The situation paralleled a past incident at the National Archives, involving pro-life participants, highlighting the potential legal vulnerabilities of such bans.

“If there is one place where the constitutionally protected rights to free speech and free expression should be protected, it must be our State Capitol,” Hunt says, adding that he is “very satisfied” with the rule change. “It was a bad rule, often selectively enforced. … We have advanced the free-speech rights of all Coloradans at the people’s house!” – Hunt – https://www.westword.com/news/colorado-capitol-ends-political-apparel-ban-lawsuit-threat-21656392

The FIRE lawsuit underscored significant issues in the initial rule. Their attorney Josh Bleisch stated, “Jeff should have been allowed to express his opinions in a non-disruptive manner, but the rule was overbroad and gave officials too much leeway to arbitrarily enforce the ban.” By rescinding the ban, the Colorado Capitol appears to affirm the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Tweets by colo_politics

Broader Implications and Reactions

The policy reversal sets a precedent for other state legislatures. FIRE attorney Raul Ruiz emphasized, “Other states should be on notice that bans on political expression will not be tolerated.” Advocates of free speech view this decision as a victory for civil liberties and hope it prompts similar actions nationwide.

“Colorado did the right thing,” said FIRE attorney Raul Ruiz. “Other states should be on notice that bans on political expression will not be tolerated.” https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-after-fire-threatens-lawsuit-colorado-lifts-ban-political-apparel

For Hunt and others, the decision resonates deeply. “I am thrilled at this outcome,” said Hunt. “Now, Coloradans are free to share their voices, particularly at the state Capitol, where the work of the people takes place.” The incident marks a moment of reflection for the statehouse, encouraging a balanced approach to maintaining decorum while respecting individual rights.