Invariably, when I canvass a HOA neighborhood, some pedestrians who happen to see me get ruffled feathers. I typically hear, "This is private property; you're trespassing."

My standard response is, "I know the law, and I'm obeying the law. Do you want to talk about it?"

However, angry people usually don't want to be educated. So, I leave it at that and continue to canvass.

Swallow's Nest canvassing was different. It's a gated community, but not with an automatic gate that I can patiently wait to enter. Instead, it has a 24/7/365 guardhouse. So, when I canvassed this neighborhood on 1/10/2026 and 1/11/2026, I had to disobey the guard's order that I not enter. On each occasion, I said my admonishment and walked around the gate to canvass. On 2/21/2026, I received this intimidating letter from the lawyer of Swallow's Nest Homeowners' Association:

1. Regarding "Swallows Nest is a private residential community. All streets, common areas, and property within the community are privately owned.": This is incorrect.
   • California civil code, section 4095 defines common area in HOA neighborhoods. The streets are included in the common area and are not privately owned. Privately owned assets, like a landlord owns a shopping center, can be sold. Whereas a resident may sell a property, no one can sell a street.
   • Instead, the streets are community-owned and maintained by the community's association. Moreover, California civil code, section 4775 describes the responsibilities the HOA has for maintaining the common area. The section says, "... the association is responsible for repairing, replacing, and maintaining the common area."
2. Regarding "You do not have authorization to enter the community for any purpose.": This is incorrect. I have authorization to access the common area to distribute political leaflets. California civil code does not authorize the association to forbid access to the streets for conducting free speech. Indeed, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging [to reduce in scope] the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Instead, it is the Supreme Court's rulings that reduce the scope of free speech or press. A HOA rule that denies access to the common area for leaflet distribution abridges the freedom of speech and press.
3. Regarding "As a result, residents experienced unexpected and unwelcome door-to-door solicitation." This is incorrect on two facts:
   • I only left leaflets on doorsteps. I did not knock on any door nor did I ring any doorbell. One resident saw me from her window. She opened the front door to scold me and told me to pick up my leaflet. I said, "I will", picked it up, and walked away.
   • My activity is not solicitation. Instead, it is political canvassing, which is protected speech.
4. Regarding "Political canvassing, campaigning, or other expressive activity does not create any right to enter private property without permission.":
   • Yes, my activity is political canvassing, not solicitation.
   • I did not enter any private property.
5. Regarding "Such conduct constitutes trespass under applicable law.": To the contrary, the applicable law specifically grants the right to distribute leaflets to householders.
   1. Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938) says:
      • "Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action."
      • "A city ordinance forbidding as a nuisance the distribution, by hand or otherwise, of literature of any kind without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager violates the Fourteenth Amendment; strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship."
      • "The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It embraces pamphlets and leaflets."
   2. Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) says:
      • "The right of freedom of speech and press has broad scope. The authors of the First Amendment knew that novel and unconventional ideas might disturb the complacent, but they chose to encourage a freedom which they believed essential if vigorous enlightenment was ever to triumph over slothful ignorance."
      • "This freedom embraces the right to distribute literature."
      • Any association censorship "substitutes the judgment of [the association] for the judgment of the individual householder."
      • "It submits the distributor to criminal punishment for annoying the person on whom he calls, even though the recipient of the literature distributed is, in fact, glad to receive it."
6. Regarding "If you attempt to enter the community again without authorization, the Association will treat the entry as trespass and will take enforcement action, including contacting law enforcement...": Both times, when I canvassed Swallow's Nest on 1/10/2026 and 1/11/2026, a HOA board member call the police. Both times, I showed the police officers the text of the laws that I carry with me. Both times, the officers let me go without judgment. (Actually, one officer passed negative judgment on the association for waisting their time.)
7. Regarding "... and pursuing all remedies available under applicable law...": I assume you mean you will take me to court. Well, this webpage articulates my defense.

Indeed, an overwhelming majority of pedestrians I encounter appreciate the information I provide to help them vote. Only the slothfully ignorant get ruffled feathers.