In a move that should send chills down the spine of every parent and first amendment advocates, California’s State Senate recently passed SB 596, a bill aimed against parent’s speaking out at school board meetings.
The bill aims to broaden the definition of “harassment” of school employees. SB 596 expands the current definition of “school employee” to include any individual associated with a school district, charter school, county or state education board, or office.
It proposes to penalize acts causing “substantial disorder” at school board meetings as a misdemeanor. However, the bill remains ambiguous regarding what constitutes “substantial disorder,” leaving the definition of “harassment” open to wide interpretation.
Those who violate these provisions could face fines ranging from $500 to $1,000, a year in county jail, or both. Repeat offenses carry stricter penalties, including mandatory jail time.
“It’s clear they’re trying to chill parents from speaking out,” said Sarah Parshall Perry, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.
She told The Daily Signal, “Considering that these are essential terms for the bill, it’s likely that if passed, the law would fall under a vagueness challenge.”
Many conservatives argue that parents hold an intrinsic right to voice concerns under the First Amendment. Perry stated, “Ordinary limitations on certain speech—making a true threat of violence, for example—already apply within the context of the First Amendment, making the criminal penalty here unnecessary, legally suspect, and ideologically driven.”
Kelly Schenkoske, a Californian mother, expressed her dismay, “California Democrats want to increase the presence of minors’ activism while working to chill the free speech of rightfully concerned parents and taxpayers.”
Highlighting the pressing issues of California like low academic achievement, drug crisis, and rising taxes, Schenkoske said, “Instead of focusing on solutions for a state riddled with low academic achievement, a drug crisis, homelessness, rising taxes, human trafficking, water storage issues, and fire prevention, this Democrat-controlled Legislature continues to propose their aggressive, anti-family, legislative pet projects.”
“Their work over the years to erode parental involvement and rights has been noticed by parents who will stand courageously to speak for the protection of their children and for a better education,” she continued.
RELATED: Watch: Parents Cheer As California State Schools Chief Gets BOOTED OUT Of Local School Board Meeting
Jim Manley, state legal policy deputy director of the Pacific Legal Institute mentioned, “The idea that the government is trying to regulate conduct at school board meetings is pretty normal,” Manley said. “What sends up potential red flags is some of the language in this bill.”
The bill defines “harassment” as “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate person.”
SB 596 defines “course of conduct” as “a pattern of conduct composed of two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.”
A parent or other person offering counter-opinion “saying two things that the school official finds harassing could be enough to qualify there,” Manley said. “An email that simply torments would count as harassment under this standard.”
The lawyer noted that “to torment” merely means “to cause mental suffering.”
“If you send two emails that cause a school board official to mentally suffer, technically you fall under this definition,” Manley said.
The bill “could be interpreted in a way that chills people’s ability to communicate with elected officials,” he said.
While the bill exempts labor union activities like picketing, there’s no such exemption for parents distributing literature at these meetings, further fueling concerns.
Matt McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute expressed similar apprehensions, saying, “The hypocrisy is unmistakable.”
“I would certainly agree that SB 596 targets conservative parents who have been energized and re-engaging at the school board level,” McReynolds told The Daily Signal.
“It’s not just speaking at school board meetings; this would criminalize sending emails that seriously annoy or alarm school employees,” he said. “Note, too, the double standards, beginning with the exception in the legislation for labor union activity such as picketing.”
He also pointed to the bill’s broader implications, “our state leaders are stressing decriminalization and have released thousands of dangerous offenders back into our communities.”
“The rhetoric about mass incarceration and overcriminalization goes out the window when they’re going after their political enemies. And in the school setting itself, our legislators are moving to reduce the ability of teachers and administrators to punish kids for defiance, disruption, and disorder. The hypocrisy is unmistakable,” he said.
State Sen. Anthony J. Portantino, who sponsored SB 596, did not offer any comment. The bill passed 30-8 in May and is now headed to the California State Assembly.
This development follows other significant legislation in California. Notably, last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 107 into law, prioritizing children’s gender identity over parental rights.
As this legislative environment evolves, some, like State Sen. Scott Wilk, a Republican, are advising parents who prioritize their involvement in their children’s education and well being, “If you love your children, you need to flee California.”
