Political Signs

[petedaniel]

What is the name of your state? South Carolina

I live in North Augusta, SC and put a political sign up withing my property boundary about two weeks ago. I received by mail about a week ago a notice from North Augusta informing me of a city ordinance regarding the placement of political signs. I understand that if I don't take my sign down, there could be a summons issued and a $500 fine.

According to this ordinance, citizens of North Augusta may not place a political sign even own their private property no sooner than 10 days before an election, i.e.; Saturday, October 23, 2004.

This ordinance may be accessed by going to www.northaugusta.net and clicking on Zoning Ordinance on the right side of the web page. On the right side of this page, click on Design and Improvement Standards.

Go to paragraph 7.g.6.b.2 for the following:

2. Political Signs in Residential Zones: Signs announcing a public election or political campaign for a candidate(s) for election on residential zoned lots shall be erected no sooner than ten (10) days prior to an election and shall be removed within forty-eight (48) hours following the election or political campaign. Portable signs are not allowed on residential zoned lots. Political signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet for the entire zoned lot on which they are located. No more than one (1) sign shall be permitted per lot.

I would like to know if there has been a court case ruling on such an issue. This does not seem legal and one of our councilmen (who happens to be a lawyer) agrees. Of course he can't represent himself, if he sued, he would be suing himself. So what has happened to freedom of speech. Can a city ordinance abridge the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution?

Thanking you in advance, I am,

William E. Daniel, Sr.
1216 Highview Avenue
North Augusta, SC 29841

 

[racer72]

Your local ordinance appears to not violate your 4th amendment rights. I would suggest a consultation with a local attorney.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Sorry Racer, but this issue has been decided before, in other venues.

In 1993, the Washington State Supreme Court (following well-established law) declared unconstitutional the City of Tacoma ordinances (TMC 2.05.275(1) and 6.03.070) that banned political campaign signs on street parking strips, rights-of-way, and other city property. The Court's words were, "We hold unconstitutional only those provisions of the ordinances which impermissibly restrict the scope of political speech through limitations on the time and place for the preelection posting of political signs."

In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994), the Supreme Court unanimously struck down an ordinance that prohibited all residential signs with a short list of exceptions. The Court noted that the ordinance “almost completely foreclosed a venerable mans of communication that is both unique and important.” Further, “[r]esidential 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.”

For a lengthy discussion of this topic you might want to go here:
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings02/MORRISON/morrison.htm

 

[CdwJava]

Just how big is this sign? And how many signs are there?

I Noted the Augusta ordinance made several conditions that would violate the ordinance. And prior cases have held that there are valid restrictions even to political speech in the form of signs. For instance, all because it is political does NOT mean that someone can erect a billbaord in their yard or on the side of the freeway in defiance of other laws or zoning.

There may be more to this than meets the eye.

- Carl

 

[racer72]

Sorry Racer, but this issue has been decided before, in other venues.

In 1993, the Washington State Supreme Court (following well-established law) declared unconstitutional the City of Tacoma ordinances (TMC 2.05.275(1) and 6.03.070) that banned political campaign signs on street parking strips, rights-of-way, and other city property. The Court's words were, "We hold unconstitutional only those provisions of the ordinances which impermissibly restrict the scope of political speech through limitations on the time and place for the preelection posting of political signs."

In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994), the Supreme Court unanimously struck down an ordinance that prohibited all residential signs with a short list of exceptions. The Court noted that the ordinance “almost completely foreclosed a venerable mans of communication that is both unique and important.” Further, “[r]esidential 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.”

For a lengthy discussion of this topic you might want to go here:
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings02/MORRISON/morrison.htm

The Washington state decision only concerned the placement of the signs on public property, not private. In a couple of cases that have made local new recently involved the placement of political signs in apartment windows. The local courts ruled the the 4th amendment does not apply to private property. In both cases the signs came down. And in some of the richer hamlets east of Seattle, local ordinances ban all signs, including political signs. Even the ubiquitous garage sale signs are no where to be found. That is why I suggested the OP visit with a local attorney familiar with the local laws.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

The Washington state decision only concerned the placement of the signs on public property, not private. In a couple of cases that have made local new recently involved the placement of political signs in apartment windows. The local courts ruled the the 4th amendment does not apply to private property. In both cases the signs came down. And in some of the richer hamlets east of Seattle, local ordinances ban all signs, including political signs. Even the ubiquitous garage sale signs are no where to be found. That is why I suggested the OP visit with a local attorney familiar with the local laws.

They are trying that here too in a sub-division in Williamson County. It won't fly because the challenge is already being heard.