CA: From Absurd to Insanity: Fresno’s War on Registrants Involved in City Council
In what can only be described as a breathtaking leap from questionable policy to outright farce, Fresno is now considering banning registrants from attending city council meetings. Under the new measure, registered sex offenders would be prohibited from attending city council meetings in person. Not schools. Not playgrounds. Not parks. City council meetings! The kind held in echoing chambers with uncomfortable chairs, where the highlight of the evening is often a debate about zoning. And yet, this is now being treated as a space so fraught with danger that it must be off-limits to a particular class of people.
The justification, we are told, is that City Hall is a place where children may be present. Of course. Because nothing draws children in quite like municipal governance.
This would all be funny if it weren’t the foundation for a totally insane policy proposal. Once you set aside the absurd rationale, the real effect becomes clear: excluding a group of people from participating in their own government. Restricted based on status rather than conduct.
The right to show up—to stand in a public space, to speak, to be seen and heard—is not incidental. It is at the core of what the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects: the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances. Not from afar. Not through a filtered channel. But directly. In Fresno the First Amendment is conditional and we at FAC sincerely hope that if this passes ACSOL rips the city a new one in court!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
TO: Chairman and Members of the Fresno City Council
CC:
Civil Rights Enforcement Section
Office of the Attorney General
California Department of Justice
Email: [email protected]
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Email: [email protected]
Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel
American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)
Email: [email protected]
Reference: Hannah Gonzales, “Fresno Looks at Banning Sex Offenders from City Council Meetings,” Local Fresno News KSEE24/CBS47+, March 17, 2026
Dear Chairman and Members of the Fresno City Council,
I write to strongly oppose the proposed ordinance barring individuals listed on sex offender registries—who have completed their sentences and all supervision—from entering city facilities, including City Hall.
This proposal cuts against core constitutional principles. Individuals who have paid their debt to society remain citizens. The Constitution does not recognize second-class citizenship, nor does it permit government to exclude a class of people from access to their own government.
By prohibiting entry into City Hall, the ordinance directly interferes with fundamental rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including the right to petition government, attend public meetings, and participate in civic life. These are not privileges to be selectively granted—they are protected rights.
The ordinance also imposes a blanket restriction based solely on status, without any individualized assessment. It treats all registrants the same regardless of the nature of their offense, the time elapsed, or evidence of rehabilitation. That raises serious Equal Protection and Due Process concerns and resembles additional punishment after a sentence has already been served.
There is also a broader principle at stake—one this country has confronted before. In earlier periods of our history, entire classes of Americans were excluded from public spaces and meaningful civic participation, often under the justification of public safety or order. Black Americans were denied access to institutions and government spaces in ways that made their rights hollow in practice.
The issue here is not an equivalence of groups, but a similarity in method: the use of government authority to exclude a defined class of citizens from public institutions based on who they are rather than what they are doing. History has already shown that approach to be unjust and incompatible with equal protection under the law.
If allowed to stand, this ordinance sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door to broader exclusions—against other former offenders or any group deemed undesirable. That is not consistent with constitutional governance.
Finally, a system that denies full participation in civic life after a sentence is complete is not justice—it is perpetual punishment. That undermines rehabilitation, weakens communities, and erodes confidence in the rule of law.
I urge the Council to reject this ordinance and uphold the constitutional protections that apply to all citizens.
Respectfully,
This is actually terrifying. I could see it being on the Agenda in say Brevard County Fl but not in California. Passing severe restrictions and stealing rights has happened too many times in this State, however in one of the less restrictive states to have them reach so far is odd. If it passes there what will happen elsewhere.
We sued Brevard over this a few years ago and won.
Yes, Brevard County violated the Sunshine Act. But do they have a “Sunshine Act” in California?
It seems like this would blatantly violate the US constitution, right?
“The Ralph M. Brown Act is a California law that guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. Located at California Government Code 54950 et seq., it is an act of the California State Legislature, authored by Assemblymember Ralph M. Brown and passed in 1953.” (I’m lazy and copy-pasted Wikipedia, but this was mentioned in the news story.)