Can't Protect Itself
American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, News Release
March 20, 2008
ACLU Seeks Repeal of Botetourt County Ordinance Placing Time Limits on Campaign Signs
Supervisors must suspend ordinance or face litigation from civil liberties group
Botetourt County, VA -- The ACLU of Virginia today urged Botetourt County government officials to immediately suspend -- then repeal -- an ordinance that prohibits residents from having campaign signs in their yards more than 60 days in advance of an election or more than 15 days afterwards. The ACLU is prepared to go to court to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional.
"Campaign signs in front yards are as much a part of the American political landscape as newspaper editorials, stump speeches and blogs," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. "The main purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee to all citizens the right to express their political views. A local government that prevents homeowners from posting campaign signs in their own front yards whenever they wish has severely eroded the free speech rights of its residents."
In the letter to the Botetourt County Administrator and the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca K. Glenberg writes that the ordinance violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment:
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that a political lawn sign is a “venerable means of communication that is both unique and important. . . . . Signs that react to a local happening or express a view on a controversial issue both reflect and animate change in the life of a community.” City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 54 (1994). Moreover, “[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.” Id. at 57.
Similar ordinances in Farmville, Norton, and Culpeper have come under ACLU scrutiny in recent years. In each of those jurisdictions, government officials ultimately repealed the time restrictions on campaign signs.
Glenberg’s letter is written on behalf of Jim Fain, Chair of the Botetourt County Democratic Committee. In late February, Fain received notice from the County Administrator asking him to assist the County in ensuring compliance with the sign ordinance.
The text of Glenberg’s letter follows.
Contacts: Kent Willis or Rebecca Glenberg, (office) 804/644-8022
March 20, 2008
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
Gerald A. Burgess
County Administrator
Botetourt County
1 West Main Street, Box 1
Fincastle, VA 24090
Fax: (540) 473-8225
Don A. Assaid, Chairman
Botetourt County Board of Supervisors
291 McIntosh Road
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Fax: (540) 563-7021
Dear Mr. Burgess and Mr. Assaid:
I write on behalf of Jim Fain as chair of the Botetourt County Democratic Committee. On February 28, 2008, you wrote a letter to Mr. Fain asking for his assistance in ensuring compliance with the County’s sign ordinance, which provides that political signs may not be erected more than 60 days prior nor 15 days after any election or nomination. This ordinance, however, is unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that a political lawn sign is a “venerable means of communication that is both unique and important. . . . . Signs that react to a local happening or express a view on a controversial issue both reflect and animate change in the life of a community.” City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 54 (1994). Moreover, “[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.” Id. at 57.
Consistent with the unique First Amendment significance of residential signs, courts have repeatedly invalidated ordinances that restrict the number of days before and after an election that political lawn signs may be displayed. See, e.g., Whitton v. City of Gladstone, Mo . 54 F.3d 1400 (8 th Cir. 1995); Curry v. Prince George's County, Md . , 33 F.Supp.2d 447 (D.Md.,1999); Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Lenexa, 67 F.Supp.2d 1231 (D. Kan. 1999); Dimas v. City of Warren, 939 F.Supp. 554 (E.D.Mich.1996); McCormack v. Township of Clinton, 872 F.Supp. 1320 (D.N.J. 1994); City of Antioch v. Candidates' Outdoor Graphic Serv., 557 F.Supp. 52 (D.C. Cal. 1982); Orazio v. Town of North Hempstead, 426 F.Supp. 1144 (D.C.N.Y. 1977); Collier v. City of Tacoma, 854 P.2d 1046 ( Wash. 1993).
In short, citizens have the right to express their political views at any time, and not merely a certain number of days before or after an election.
Accordingly, I ask that you provide immediate written assurances that you will cease all enforcement of durational limits on political signs, and that you will take prompt steps to repeal such limits. If such action is not forthcoming, we will not hesitate to take appropriate legal action on behalf of Mr. Fain and others similarly affected by the ordinance.
Please respond by April 4, 2008. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (804) 644-8022. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Rebecca K. Glenberg
cc: William L. Heartwell, County Attorney (Via Fax: 540-473-1010)