Emmitsburg Dispatch:

“ACLU to monitor ordinance changes for political signs.”

http://www.emmitsburgdispatch.com/2005/September/aclu.shtml

By Richard D. L. Fulton

News Editor

Emmitsburg Dispatch

Town regulations that govern election signs in Emmitsburg have come under scrutiny from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), through a complaint from former defeated town commissioner candidate Harold C. Craig, Jr.

Craig stated going into the April town election that he had problems with the sign ordinance as it related to election signs, claiming that size limitations constitutionally violated his freedom of speech.

The ACLU apparently agreed with Craig, then vice president of Citizens Organized to Preserve Emmitsburg (COPE), and began to communicate with the town as early as March, nearly a month before the election.

ACLU says ordinance ‘unconstitutional’

In a March 28 letter, Richard Griffiths, a staff attorney with the ACLU, wrote “on behalf of Harold Craig, Jr.” that the town’s sign regulations “clearly are in violation as they relate to the regulation of political signs.”

Griffiths claimed, “both the temporal and size restrictions on campaign signs and the permit requirement for them violate the first amendment as unconstitutional (content based) … restraints.”

Griffiths cited three sections of his interpretation of the town sign ordinance as constitutionally problematic: “The town code classifies political advocacy signs as a category of temporary sign … (which) restricts their size to no larger than three square feet and their … placement to 60 days before and election and 30 days after … (and) … requires a permit for all temporary signs.”

“While the town may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech, including the postings of signs, the current regulations burden political speech more than allowable under the constitution,” Griffith noted.

The attorney told The Dispatch that much of the problem lies with the fact that the town’s sign code addresses content (citing restrictions applicable only to political signs). “Content-based restrictions have to clear a much higher hurdle to be constitutional. It’s very difficult to come up with a compelling reason to discriminate based on content,” he said.

Code unclear on temporary signs

The sign code, under a heading, “Temporary signs in all zones,” states, “Political advocacy signs shall not be larger than three square feet and may be placed sixty days prior to an election and must be removed within thirty days following the election.”

The code also requires that temporary signs have a permit, according to a chart located prior to section discussing political signs.

However, town staff told The Dispatch that, while size restrictions for political signs and the direction for displaying them have been followed, the town did not interpret the code to mean that political signs fell into the temporary sign category, and never charged any candidate for a permit to display them.

Jennifer Joy (zoning technician) said they are not treated the same as temporary signs. “That’s their (ACLU) interpretation. That’s not my interpretation. We have never required a permit for political signs, and have never charged (a fee) throughout the history of this office. History shows we have not interpreted the code that way.”

Town Attorney John R. Clapp told the ACLU in a letter dated Aug. 10, “I have been informed by the town that efforts will be made to review and revise the sign ordinance to address the constitutional concerns which you have raised … prior to the beginning of next year (2006).”

A sign of the times

In an Aug. 16 press release in which the ACLU declared Emmitsburg’s sign code “unconstitutional,” Griffiths commented, “The right to express your views on the political issues of the day is at the heart of what the first amendment seeks to protect.”

On February 28, Amy Naill, town code enforcement person, issued a statement to Craig noting the limitations placed on election campaign signs in the community. On March 5, Craig sent a letter to Mayor James E. Hoover indicating he proposed to erect a three-foot by eight-foot banner (exceeding size limitations by code) at 701 East Main Street and at 124 South Seton Avenue.

Craig further told the town that if he were not permitted to put up the campaign banners, he would have “no alternative except legal action against this un-American and unconstitutional provision abridging my civil right.”

Although the town then decided not to enforce any political sign restrictions going into the election, Craig still field a complaint with the ACLU.

Craig finished last in the ensuing election, with 101 votes, in his bid for a commissioner seat.