Senate committee approves anti-riot bill
Procedural move gets HB 1 heard in the upper chamber
A procedural maneuver and a near party-line vote is sending a bill aimed at cracking down on violent rioters — and which critics say could be used against legitimate peaceful protesters — to the full Florida Senate floor.
HB 1 has already passed the House and on April 9 it cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee 11-9 and now goes to the full Senate.
Like debates in the lower chamber, the Senate discussion produced some strong language.
“Do the right thing and vote no. It’s the right thing to do…,” said Sen. Jason Pizzo, D-Miami. “It’s such the right thing to do to vote no that none of you, none of you, have even a half-assed reason to vote yes because everybody who is going to be voting yes in the majority have never…had to worry about what water fountain, what bus seat, what school they had to go to.”
“As a father, as a husband, as a lawyer, and as a soldier, I’m heartbroken that our state and our nation has reached a point of impact where I personally believe that this legislation is necessary to ensure that my children and yours can live together more united and come together to discuss our differences through peaceful dialogue and not violence,” said Sen. Danny Burgess, R-Zephyrhills, who presented HB 1 to the committee.
Under normal procedures, the Senate version of HB 1, SB 484 — sponsored by Burgess — would have been heard first in the Criminal Justice Committee and then the Judiciary Committee before reaching the Appropriations Committee. But SB 484 never made either committee’s agenda.
Pizzo chairs the Criminal Justice Committee and Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, who cast the only Republican vote against HB 1 in the Appropriations Committee, chairs the Judiciary Committee.
Appropriations Committee Chair Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, announced at the beginning of the all-day meeting that Senate President Wilton Simpson, R-Spring Hill, decided to invoke a rule that allows a bill that passes the House, but its counterpart has not been heard in a Senate committee, to be referred to a Senate committee.
“Although infrequent, the Senate routinely hears House bills in Senate committees. In 2019 and 2020, the Senate heard 10 House bills; all House bills were either heard in Rules or Appropriations Committee,” Stargel said.
The bill toughens penalties for violent acts connected with a riot, creates new crimes of cyber intimidation and mob intimidation, and provides that those charged with violent crimes in a disturbance may not be released until they have appeared in courts.
The bill allows a local state attorney or member of a city council or commission to appeal a reduction in the city’s police budget to the Cabinet. Sovereign immunity limits would be removed on local governments if they were sued by businesses charging those local governments interfered with local law enforcement’s ability to protect the businesses in a riot.
The measure also provides an affirmative defense in a civil action if a car driver felt threatened and hit a rioter with his or her vehicle.
Opponents said the bill had poor definitions, which could lead to peaceful protesters being arrested if a few people at an event became violent, interfered with municipal governments’ ability to set police budgets, would threaten to bankrupt cities with the sovereign immunity exception, and would encourage vigilante justice.
They also said it would be inequitably enforced against minority communities.
The Appropriations Committee, which includes 20 of the Senate’s 40 members, met all day on the bill and Stargel said she was prepared to meet all day on Saturday, April 10, if necessary.
The meeting followed a familiar pattern from House committees. Democratic members asked tough questions about the bill, and then the committee rejected several amendments from Democratic members aimed at changing or removing various provisions from the bill. That was followed by hours of testimony from public speakers who overwhelmingly opposed the bill.
One action that did come is Burgess promised Sen. Bobby Powell, D-West Palm Beach, that he would draft a letter for his and Powell’s signature asking Simpson to order the Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to study the racial impact if the bill becomes law.
Powell had introduced an amendment to make that study a part of the law.
“The purpose of protesting is to bring about real change, to disrupt the status quo to bring attention and awareness, to bring the light of equity to the darkness of injustice, to motivate movement from stagnant discrimination, to interrupt unfairness and cause an eruption of justice,” said Sen. Darryl Rouson, R-St. Petersburg, during the committee’s debate on the bill. “The people in my district are concerned, as well as all the ones who testified today from all across the state of Florida, about the chilling effect of this bill.
“Don’t tell me about what you say it means, until I see it work…. This bill is unnecessary, it is not needed. The laws are already on the books that can be enforced.”
Sen. Randolph Bracy, D-Orlando, was one of several who blamed the bill on an agenda by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who called the measure his top legislative priority.
“For the life of me I cannot understand why the governor, make no mistake about it, this is his proposal,…in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of people calling my office trying to figure out how they’re going to pull their lives back together again, he comes to the House of Representatives at the beginning of session and says this is his priority?” Bracy asked.
“We can do better than this. This is not the best of who we are. I think it draws on fears of people and doesn’t call on our better angels.”
Stargel said the bill was not the result of DeSantis’ actions but from a desire to protect business and property owners of all races during riots.
She said the legitimate concerns ignited by the police killing of George Floyd last May were undercut when some of the ensuing protests turned destructive.
“I protect that right to speech, to the protests, to be able to rise up and complain but I will not stand here and protect the right for someone to make that cause by destroying someone’s car, by burning down someone’s building, by getting in someone’s face and saying, ‘You need to say these words or I’m going to punch you,’” Stargel said. “Those things I will not support….
“That is what this bill is about and let’s not let that get lost in the conversation of race and protest and the right to rise up. I support that.”
The bill is set to come up for the second of three required readings before the full Senate on April 14.
