"Old Dominion House Bill 66" By: Will Poellnitz

            House Bill No. 66 is a fairly controversial bill.  In light of recent events such as Charlottesville, student walkouts across the country over gun violence, and the Women’s March, this bill received a lot of drawback from delegates.  The bill concerns the liability of automobile drivers for the injury of a protestor, and whether they are immune to the consequences or not.  Bill Patron Gerson Carrera led this bill through committee, but even after a couple amendments, the bill did not make it past the house.  Here is a look into why.

            HB No. 66 stated that “a person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public street or highway is immune from civil liability for the injury.”  This led to concerns surrounding the First Amendment, which states the right to free speech and the right to assemble.  Under this bill, protesters without a permit aren’t protected from injury, which could lead to their freedom being restricted.  Some may argue that if someone is protesting without a permit they are at fault.  This is true, and where intention comes in.

Another thing that this bill intended to protect is government commerce, which is the department of the government that promotes economic growth.  When people protest without a permit, they are illegally intervening with the business of the government.  As Carrera put it himself, “when you are stopping the streets and the highway, you are preventing the government from interacting with schools, businesses, and manufacturers, therefore lowering economic growth”.  This bill would have ensured that protesters avoid the streets, and turned the right of way from the pedestrian to the driver.

In the house, delegates claimed that this bill could give drivers an excuse to injure someone and hindered the right to protest.  This led to two amendments being added to the bill.  One required the incident to have occurred on the highway for the driver to be immune to liability.  The second required the protester to be exhibiting violent behavior in order for the driver to be immune.  Even after these amendments, the bill was voted down and didn’t make it through the house.