The Cheyenne City Council debated and ultimately declined to advance a revised ordinance on door-to-door soliciting at its Nov. 24 meeting, after a night of public testimony and repeated amendments.

The ordinance, up for second reading, drew early public comment from Seth Lloyd of Ward 1, who urged the council to treat commercial solicitation differently from noncommercial, religious and political speech. An unnamed state representative warned the council that maintaining a ban on canvassing could prompt a First Amendment challenge.

Councilmembers moved several amendments. The council approved changing the allowed start time for soliciting from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m., and voted to remove language that would have prohibited leaving literature at residences with ‘no soliciting’ signs — effectively allowing campaign or informational materials to be left on doorways. Council attorney John Brody told members that certain restrictions could still be content-neutral but that other provisions of city code addressing handbills and distribution might interact with the changes.

A later, broader amendment by Councilmember Escobel to delete subsections that would have exempted religious organizations and political activities from the prohibition attracted the sharpest debate. Supporters framed the change as preserving grassroots campaigning and avoiding an incumbency advantage; opponents and some legal observers raised concerns about clarity and enforcement. After discussion and a recorded show of hands on no votes, the motion to delete those subsections failed and, with subsequent voting, the main ordinance did not pass at second reading that evening.

Mayor Patrick Collins said the council would return to related language in committee; several members urged more legal review and clearer wording before bringing the measure back. The transcript shows the council handled multiple discrete amendments rather than a single all-encompassing revision, and the outcome leaves the city’s existing solicitor code unchanged for now.

The ordinance’s failure preserves current city code while signaling the council wants firmer legal vetting and clearer language before limiting or altering rules that intersect with political and religious speech.