Modesto residents press council to repeal anti‑masking provision after June protest arrests

Dozens of residents used the public‑comment period at the Modesto City Council—s Sept. 9 meeting to demand that the council place municipal code 4‑23.02 subsection 13—s anti‑masking provision on a future agenda for repeal or substantial amendment. Speakers said the provision has chilled free speech and enabled selective enforcement by police at protests.

The broad appeal included community groups, journalists and people who described themselves as unhoused or youth; many cited the arrests at a June 14 "ICE Out" protest and referenced recent public letters from the ACLU and the First Amendment Coalition asking the city to change the ordinance. "No one should have to risk their identity, health, and physical safety in order to attend or report on a protest," said Ryan Hall, administrative manager for Cal Bridal, describing the ordinance as "not only unclear and unworkable but also discriminatory."

The ACLU and other speakers argued the ordinance allows officers to restrict protective gear commonly recommended for demonstrators and journalists and to treat masking as a proxy for criminal intent. "Criminalizing masking does not keep our community safe," said Lara Connor, a Modesto resident who urged the council to agendize repeal. Several speakers warned they would pursue litigation if the council did not act; one said they would work with the ACLU to sue the city.

Speakers also described specific incidents they said demonstrated discriminatory enforcement. An unhoused youth quoted by a public commenter said, "Riot guns were being pointed at them. It kinda scared me because I thought my friends were in danger." Another speaker recounted being shackled and ignored while detained.

Many speakers criticized the council for referring the matter to the Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB) rather than taking direct council action. "Pushing this onto the CPRB is nothing more than pushing the can down the road," said Madison Condit. Commenters noted the ordinance was adopted quickly in 2019 and said the council has the authority to place repeal or amendment on a future agenda without delay.

Council members did not vote on the petition during the Sept. 9 meeting. Several council members acknowledged receiving written public comment and thanked speakers for attending; none announced a new agenda date for the ordinance. Public commenters repeatedly asked individual council members to agendize the repeal; speakers said silence or delays would likely lead to legal action.

The public comment sequence on this issue ran from the council—s reading of the rules through the blue‑card speakers and extended through multiple citizens who said they would pursue outside remedies if the council did not act.

Ending

The council did not take formal action on municipal code 4‑23.02 subsection 13 during the Sept. 9 meeting. Speakers closed by urging the council to either agendize repeal or be prepared for legal challenges; several said they would continue to press the issue at future meetings and through the ACLU.