HB 1197 creates the “Safe Solicitation Act,” a statewide framework for regulating roadside and intersection solicitation in Mississippi. The bill requires a person who wants to solicit money or goods on roads, medians, traffic islands, or intersections to obtain a solicitation permit from the local municipality, county, political subdivision, or certain state authorities where the solicitation will occur. It also allows local governments to charge a permit fee of up to $25 and sets application requirements, including the applicant’s name, address, phone number, and the location and times of solicitation.
The bill imposes detailed operating rules for permitted solicitation. Solicitors may not impede traffic, may only enter roadways when traffic signals stop vehicles, must stay within 100 feet of the approved intersection, may solicit only during daylight hours and between 9:00 a.m. and one hour before sunset, and may not continue after being denied, act in a harassing manner, or use amplification devices. Only one permit may be issued per intersection per day, on a first-come basis, and local authorities may stop solicitation if the conditions are violated. The act also creates a misdemeanor offense for forging a solicitation permit.
HB 1197 amends existing Mississippi obstruction statutes, Sections 97-35-25 and 97-35-23, to make clear that conduct authorized under the Safe Solicitation Act is exempt from those prohibitions. It also amends Section 45-1-19 to authorize the Department of Public Safety and the Chief of Capitol Police to issue solicitation permits within the Capitol Complex Improvement District, tying the new permit system into state law enforcement authority in Jackson and on certain state properties. The act takes effect July 1, 2025, and allows counties and municipalities to opt out within six months of the effective date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears favorable but not unanimous. The House passed the bill 81-30, and the Senate passed it 39-12, indicating substantial support for regulating solicitation near roadways and intersections while preserving some local control. The main points of contention are likely the permit requirement itself, the possibility of fees, the statewide default application with only a limited opt-out window, and the bill’s restrictions on where, when, and how solicitation may occur. Supporters appear to view the measure as a traffic-safety and public-order bill, while opponents likely object to its impact on roadside solicitors, including individuals and charitable or panhandling activities.
The bill would add a new statutory scheme governing solicitation on roadways and intersections and would modify existing obstruction laws to carve out conduct permitted under the Safe Solicitation Act. It creates new misdemeanor penalties for forging solicitation permits, authorizes local governments to issue permits and charge up to $25, and gives the Department of Public Safety and Chief of Capitol Police authority to issue permits in the Capitol Complex Improvement District. It also establishes a statewide default rule subject to local opt-out, affecting municipalities, counties, political subdivisions, roadside solicitors, and potentially charitable fundraisers or panhandlers operating in traffic-adjacent areas.
The bill appears to have received generally positive legislative support, as shown by passage in both chambers with comfortable margins. The vote totals suggest lawmakers broadly agreed with the bill’s traffic-safety and public-order goals. At the same time, the nontrivial number of no votes in both the House and Senate indicates meaningful concern about the scope of the restrictions and the burden placed on people who solicit in public spaces.
The most likely areas of contention are the permit mandate, the fee, and the breadth of the restrictions on roadside solicitation. Critics may object that the bill limits expressive or charitable solicitation, imposes administrative hurdles, and gives local governments and state police significant discretion to halt activity. Supporters likely emphasize pedestrian and motorist safety, traffic flow, and the need to prevent harassment or dangerous conduct at intersections. The opt-out provision also suggests some lawmakers wanted local flexibility rather than a rigid statewide rule.