Survey says majority of Modestans back city ordinance banning masks at protests
Modesto’s community survey found that 57% of respondents support the city’s public assembly ordinance, while 51% are unaware of it.
Probolsky Research, which conducted the survey, presented the results Tuesday to the City Council. The survey was conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 7 and had 400 participants.
The Modesto Community Police Review Board had added four questions to the survey to gauge public opinion on the ordinance, which prohibits several items at protests, including masks. Though the CPRB already had recommended to the city manager that the ordinance be repealed, it wanted to gather additional community feedback as the city prepares revisions to it.
Among those who support the ordinance, 21% said protestors should remain unmasked. Nineteen percent agreed with the statement “only criminals wear masks to hide their identity.”
Among those who oppose the ordinance, 25% said it infringes on privacy and personal rights and 19.2% said they are pro face masks and argued law enforcement can wear them.
The survey results contrast sharply with the public input heard at City Council and CPRB meetings, where an overwhelming majority of speakers have urged the ordinance’s repeal.
The city said it is tentatively planning to place the item on the Dec. 2 City Council agenda for discussion.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the First Amendment Coalition had sent letters to the city demanding that the ordinance be amended or repealed, calling it unconstitutional and threatening legal action. Chessie Thacher, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, said the city appears to be taking those concerns seriously.
“We’re wary that the revisions that the city proposes will be equally unconstitutional and unworkable and maybe too little too late, so we’re still remaining ready to litigate the issue if we need to,” Thacher said.
If the council votes to retain and not amend the ordinance, Thacher said the ACLU will consider all available options. She urged community members to attend the City Council meeting and make their concerns known.
More input doesn’t make law less illegal
While community involvement in government is always valuable, Thacher said it cannot change the unconstitutionality of a law.
She said the ordinance is unfair not only to protesters, whose rights could be chilled, but also to police officers, because its vague and ambiguous language makes enforcement difficult and discretionary.
The ordinance is also invasive of individuals’ medical and religious privacy, since it allows masks to be worn for those reasons, Thacher argued. Modesto Police Chief Brandon Gillespie has said it would be up to a judge or jury to determine whether someone was wearing a mask for legitimate reasons.
And while charges against the five people arrested at the June 14 protest for allegedly wearing masks ultimately were dropped, Thacher noted that processing such cases through the court system can be a huge waste of resources.
For those concerned about the impacts of revising the ordinance, Thacher pointed out that California already has numerous laws prohibiting unlawful conduct — including a law that specifically prohibits wearing a mask while committing illegal acts to evade police.
“We shouldn’t take away the rights of the entire community to be anonymous and peacefully assemble and protest just because of this fear that’s speculative, when we have another law already,” Thacher said.
In a 1978 case, the California Court of Appeal struck down a state law banning masks after student activists in San Francisco, fearing retaliation, were arrested for wearing them while protesting the Iranian government.
“This conversation that we’re having in Modesto has been settled a long time ago,” Thacher said.
Oakland and Lomita are two cities in California that have a similar ordinance banning masks at protests. Thacher said she hasn’t seen a concerning pattern of disparate enforcement there, but after Modesto, the ACLU will continue to expand its focus on this issue.
This story was originally published November 20, 2025 at 12:11 PM.
CORRECTION: The story has been edited to correct the spelling of the research firm hired by the city to conduct the survey.
