How SCOTUS is affecting 2016 political signs

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) found that restrictions on yard signage based on the content of the signs is unconstitutional in that it inhibits free speech. This ruling is particularly relevant as we move into the depths of the 2016 presidential election.

A Supreme Court decision means that local signage ordinances are going to have to be content-neutral - and the decision will affect the 2016 election season. Image from Elvert Barnes.

A Supreme Court decision means that local signage ordinances are going to have to be content-neutral – and the decision will affect the 2016 election season. Image from Elvert Barnes.

In the past, it has been common for municipalities to permit a certain number of politically-oriented yard signs (such as those advocating for a specific candidate) for a certain amount of time leading up to and after an election. In many cases, restrictions on political signage differ from restrictions on other signage (such as those signs promoting an event). The SCOTUS decision in Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert, AZ invalidated those restrictions, declaring that, in order to uphold the free speech protections afforded by the Constitution, the content of a message (e.g., political vs. event-based) shouldn’t dictate the restrictions around that message.

The decision came down to a 9-0 vote in favor of disregarding restrictions based on content. Justice Thomas, who wrote the opinion for the court, found that: “Regulation targeted at a specific subject matter is content-based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints with that subject matter.”

In the wake of the SCOTUS ruling, various community leaders are mulling over how to incorporate the decision into their own city codes and policies. A recent feature in The Denver Post tells of a city council split on whether to address or table a current city ordinance that is now in violation of the SCOTUS ruling. While the majority voted to table the decision, it seems inevitable that the issue will have to be addressed sooner rather than later, especially as we ramp up to the presidential primaries.

In the New Hampshire Union Leader, Guest columnists representing the ACLU praised the SCOTUS decision, paraphrasing a long-ago SCOTUS declaration that political signs “constitute free speech integral to our democracy [and] are a cheap and convenient form of communication for which there may be no practical substitute.”

So does this mean that we’ll see lawns covered inch-by-inch with political signs in the coming election season? Not necessarily. The SCOTUS decision does not appear to overrule existing regulations that restrict the size, location, and number of signs that can be posted in a given area. Instead, it simply states that those restrictions cannot vary based on the content message of a sign. In other words, city code must be content-neutral when it comes to signs.

A code can permit three 36″ signs on a private city lot, but that code cannot, under the new ruling, differentiate between the number of political signs allowed versus the number of signs carrying other messages (e.g., signs advertising an event or promoting a sports team).

Perhaps the biggest sign-based change that we might see in towns across America in the coming election season is that signs might appear for a longer period of time. If prior to the SCOTUS ruling you were allowed to have event-based signs up for 90 days but political signs for only 30 days leading up to an election, you may now see political signs cropping up as soon as new city ordinances allow.

We may also see more or larger political signs on individual lots, though again, those signs will still be subject to municipality-based regulations. Expect to hear of a lot of discussion among city and town councils as they figure out how the ruling will affect local codes.

Tags: , , , ,

; ;