Houston City Council again delays vote on protest rules

• Whitmire asked the council to make the changes in late July, weeks after pro-Palestinian organizers started showing up outside his house protesting his refusal to call for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war.

Driving the news: City Council members were slated to vote on the measure Wednesday after four members — Tarsha Jackson, Tiffany Thomas, Ed Pollard and Letitia Plummer — delayed the initial July 31 vote on the proposal to have more time to review the changes.

• Instead of voting on the proposal, members voted to send it to the committee to vet the changes and hear more from the public.

State of play: Houston activists have ramped up protests outside the homes of local leaders, including Whitmire, Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Houston).

• Whitmire's office said he introduced the proposal at the request of law enforcement and elected officials.
• "Enough is enough when they start disturbing the entire peace of the neighborhood and making threatening drums, bullhorns, getting there at 9 o'clock at night and staying there till 11," Whitmire said during the July 31 meeting. "It's a terrible waste of police resources."

What they're saying: Caro Achar, engagement coordinator for free speech at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said in a statement to Axios that the proposal raises "serious concerns."

• "More than ever, Texans are facing assaults on our fundamental First Amendment rights," Achar said. "Houstonians need protections against grid failures, school curriculum censorship, polling center closures, and jail expansion — not restrictions on our free speech."

Friction point: The potential ban drew criticism from Houston political organizations and organizers, dozens of whom voiced their concerns during the City Council's public comment session Tuesday.

• "A protest is supposed to interrupt something," Olivia Olivares said, asking City Council to reject the proposal. "I don't know why y'all think 'peaceful protest' means waiting patiently for our turn to speak. People are dying. You're saying, 'Stop being rude.' We're saying, 'Stop the genocide.'"

Dig deeper: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 1988 that local prohibitions on protests outside individuals' homes are constitutional as long as they are narrow enough in scope.

• The case stemmed from a ban enacted by the Brookfield, Wisconsin, town board in response to a pair of anti-abortion activists who protested on the doorsteps of a doctor's home.
• In the court's opinion, then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "the resident is figuratively, and perhaps literally, trapped within the home and … is left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech."

Yes, but: In the dissenting opinion, then-Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall said that there could be other, less stringent rules that would achieve the goals of the prohibition without banning residential protests outright.