Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign (Blocking out the Scenery, Breaking my Mind)

Someone posted a comment, which has subsequently been deleted, questioning a yard sign on the private property of an Overland resident. The comment was partnered with a threat that “city hall” would soon be citing the resident for breaking sign ordinances.

Such sign ordinances have been found unconstitutional by SCOTUS, based on a suit that happened practically in our own backyard (or front yard as may be the case with yard signs). A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in City of Ladue v. Gilleo, agreed that residential yard signs were “a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important.” The Court explained:

“Displaying a sign from one’s own residence often carries a message quite distinct from placing the sign someplace else, or conveying the same text or picture by other means. … Residential signs are an unusually cheap and convenient form of communication. Especially for persons of modest means or limited mobility, a yard or window sign may have no practical substitute. … Even for the affluent, the added costs in money or time of taking out a newspaper advertisement, handing out leaflets on the street, or standing in front of one’s house with a handheld sign may make the difference between participating and not participating in some public debate.”

The Gilleo decision has been used to overturned many laws, not just the solid right to have them in the first place. For example, Lower courts have cited the Gilleo precedent with great success in challenging city bans on time limits surrounding political yard signs. In Curry v. Prince George’s County (1999), a federal district court in Maryland invalidated a sign ordinance that limited the posting of political campaign signs in private residences to 45 days before and up to 10 days after an election. The court wrote, “When political campaign signs are posted on private residences, they merit the same special solicitude and protection established for cause signs in City of Ladue.”

Taking another example, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in City of Painesville Building Department v. Dworken & Bernstein Co. (2000) that a city law requiring the removal of political signs within 48 hours after an election is unconstitutional as applied to the posting of such signs on private property. “Although the Supreme Court has not considered the issue, the overwhelming majority of courts that have reviewed sign ordinances imposing durational limits for temporary political signs tied to a specific election date have found them to be unconstitutional,” the court wrote.

It has also been used to overturn laws regarding the quantity of signs in one’s yard. In Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County (1993), a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a county law that imposed a two-sign limit on temporary signs for each residence. The court noted that “the two-sign limit infringes on this speech by preventing homeowners from expressing support for more than two candidates when there are numerous contested elections.”

All of the above was presented to me in a Civil Liberties class taught by none other than Overland City Attorney Bob Herman. Thus, if city hall wants to “bring it on”, I think even their own lawyers would advise against it! But, if the city chooses to do so, I hope that they are an equal opportunity violator of civil liberties and cite signs from all candidates. However, when it comes down to it—the original poster is likely just full of shit and attempting to use intimidation tactics to win an election.

Sources: Supreme Court of the United States, First Amendment Center, Bob Herman’s “Civil Liberties” class