Yard Sign Shenanigans in Montco May 14 2009
It’s that time of year again: Yard sign wars have started up again in anticipation of next Tuesday’s primary:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a candidate running for East Norriton Township Supervisor alleging that the township has an unconstitutional ordinance restricting the placement of political campaign signs that it has been selectively enforcing to favor incumbent candidates. The ACLU has asked the court to issue an emergency injunction ordering the Montgomery County municipality to halt enforcement of the ordinance and to return confiscated signs to the candidate immediately.
“One of the greatest threats to democracy occurs when government uses its power selectively to censor candidates challenging incumbents,” said Witold Walczak, the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s Legal Director. “When it comes to freedom of speech, the government cannot play favorites.”
The First Amendment lawsuit, filed in U. S. District Court in Philadelphia earlier today, is brought on behalf of Barry Papiernik, a resident of and business owner in East Norriton Township who is running for township supervisor in next Tuesday’s Republican primary election. Since last month, Papiernik’s signs have been removed from rights of way and even people’s front lawns, while signs of incumbent candidates in the same locations remain undisturbed. Papiernik has seen his signs in the back of township trucks and piled in a heap behind the township’s municipal building.
Besides the discriminatory enforcement problem, the ACLU alleges that the township’s ordinance unduly restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment in many ways. For instance, the ordinance restricts when private homeowners can display political signs on their own property, effectively prohibiting political speech for eight months out of the year; it requires candidates to get a township permit in order to post any signs, which means that a property owner could not post a sign in his or her own yard if the candidate hasn’t secured a permit; it limits homeowners to one political sign per property, which means a husband and wife couldn’t show support for different candidates; and it applies more restrictive rules to political signs than it does to commercial signs, which the First Amendment forbids.
Vernon Francis, an attorney with the Philadelphia law firm Dechert LLP, who is handling the case pro bono for the ACLU and Papiernik, noted that political signs are an irreplaceable, low-cost way for poorly financed candidates to promote their candidacy: “If you’re not an incumbent or backed by powerful and wealthy benefactors, lawns signs are often the only affordable vehicle to communicate with the voters.”
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Papiernik at an event a few weeks ago. My journey there was guided by an unbroken path of yellow yard signs on White Hall Road supporting his candidacy.
No wonder the East Norriton Old Guard is running scared.
Possibly Related...
Comments, compliments or complaints?