Dozens of Modesto residents used the City Council's Oct. 28 public-comment period to press elected officials to agendize and repeal a municipal ordinance that bans masks at protests, arguing the rule infringes on First Amendment rights and risks an ACLU lawsuit.

Speakers at the meeting repeatedly asked the council and city manager to place the measure on the next council agenda for a vote, saying the ordinance has been enforced selectively and that state law already criminalizes wearing a mask while committing a crime. "For that reason, I'm asking you to keep the mask mandate in place," said Teresa Gamboa, a neighborhood-watch coordinator who later urged council to maintain the rule for safety. Several other speakers said the opposite: "Please do not repeal the mask mandate," said Lisa Carlson, while Suzanne Gonzales asked the council to "put this on the agenda and then repeal the mask mandate." Ryan Hall, identified at the meeting as director of communications for an LGBTQ-serving organization, said, "Repealing the mask ordinance will not result in increased crime because there is already Penal Code 185."

Nut graf: The topic dominated the evening's public comment, with community members offering competing views on public safety, free expression and surveillance. Several said the ordinance disproportionately affects people of color, immigrants and others who fear retaliation; others said masks can enable criminal acts and argued for keeping local restrictions. Multiple speakers warned the council that failing to act could lead to expensive litigation: "You are running out of time," one speaker told the council, noting a pending ACLU communication and urging action before the organization files suit.

Speakers described several reasons they want the council to act. Some said masks protect people who are immunocompromised or who would face discrimination if identified at protests. "Someone you know, someone you love, someone you work for is immunocompromised," Hall said, adding that wearing a mask "is not to commit crime; it is to prevent ourselves or our loved ones from getting sick." Others tied the ordinance to broader concerns about surveillance and policing: Laricana, a community member, said the rule "contributes to a chilling atmosphere in which people cannot safely exercise their freedom of speech." Several speakers urged the city to prioritize spending on social services rather than legal defenses and policing. Anthony Drobnick, who spoke using a first-person budget persona, said repeal would avoid "bleeding" city funds defending what he called an unconstitutional policy.

Multiple speakers cited a Modesto Community Police Review Board recommendation and repeated ACLU warnings, saying the council had been asked repeatedly to put the ordinance on an agenda and had not done so. "You have been warned by the ACLU of the code's constitutionality," Laricana said. Emmanuel Vasquez Marine, a Modesto resident, asked the council to "place this issue, the June 14 arrest, the ordinance, and the review board's findings on the next agenda as a formal item" and to commit to a timeline for action.

Council members did not take action on the ordinance during the Oct. 28 meeting. The public comment period on the topic continued for more than two hours with speakers representing a range of backgrounds and perspectives. Several asked the council to agendize the issue for the Nov. 4 meeting, and multiple commenters warned that if the council did not act the city would face litigation and the associated legal costs.

Ending: The council did not vote on the mask ordinance during the Oct. 28 meeting. Public speakers closed the session by asking for a firm timeline to place the matter on a future agenda and by reiterating the legal and equity risks they said the ordinance posed; the council's response to those requests was not recorded in the meeting minutes for that night.