Question: Does any care about the City of Monona sign ordinances?
When I ran for election I was careful to follow the rules. Today I can find at least on example for every candidate that is in violation. Aside from adding to the visual clutter, this abuse runs up the cost of local elections and puts those who abide by the rules at a disadvantage. Should we repeal the ordinance, or enforce it?
Update: According to The Isthmus the city threatened enforcement of the sign ordinance in at least one case last summer: http://www.isthmus.com/isthmus/article.php?article=23414
If parts of the rules are unconstitutional, then its time to rewrite them so all the candidates know where they stand and can follow the same rules; and so the city doesn't end up in court over it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
peter, peter-
Get up to speed on the latest Supereme Court cases. Our sign ordinance is unconstitutional and has been for about four years.
Moot, does not mater.
And why do you care are you angling for next year?
Do you have a link to that?
As near as I can tell, time limits and total bans on yard signs are unconstitutional. Other limits may or may not be. I can't find any documentation that the one sign per seat rule we have is unconstitutional.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=yard_signs
"The court noted that “the two-sign limit infringes on this speech by preventing homeowners from expressing support for more than two candidates when there are numerous contested elections.”
Can you provide information to show that it is?
"I can't find any documentation that the one sign per seat rule we have is unconstitutional. "
OK, so our ordinance is only partial enforceable? So you are asking the city to enforce A and NOT B. As I recall the ordinance, it has a 30 day rule (which is unconstitutional and a size rule)
Perhaps you should start by telling your candidate to follow the rules and then file a complaint with the city.
Article and case is as follows:
"Federal Judge Declares Pewaukee Ordinances Violate Free Speech
April 12, 2004
A federal court has ruled that the City of Pewaukee unconstitutionally violated the First Amendment rights of its residents. Late last week, U.S. District Judge Charles N. Clevert struck down ordinances that prohibited City of Pewaukee residents from placing political lawn signs – even in their own yards – for the vast majority of the year.
City of Pewaukee resident Walter Fiedorowicz wanted to place signs saying “Let Us Vote” in his front yard and on the private property of other willing residents, to help persuade the Common Council to hold a referendum on whether the City and Village of Pewaukee should merge. One City ordinance prohibited placing any campaign signs except for limited periods before and after elections – but the City had not scheduled an election. Another ordinance required residents to pay fees and get official permission to erect temporary signs and restricted use of those signs to 30 days in a six-month period, even though the City permitted the use of church bulletin boards and real estate signs for longer periods of time.
In holding the ordinances unconstitutional, Judge Clevert held that “communication by signs and posters is virtually pure speech” and that for the “vast majority of the year, the City of Pewaukee has completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important.” The city had argued that its ban was necessary for traffic safety and aesthetic reasons, but Judge Clevert found that it had not justified its differential treatment of political speech, and that requiring city approval of signs was an unconstitutional prior restraint. Judge Clevert’s decision “made clear that such concerns cannot justify heavy-handed regulation of the exercise of one of our most essential liberties,” noted ACLU executive director Chris Ahmuty.
American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation volunteer counsel James Friedman, Brady Williamson, and Jennifer Peterson, of LaFollette, Godfrey & Kahn, represented Mr. Fiedorowicz. Judge Clevert also ordered the City to pay Mr. Fiedorowicz’s attorney’s fees.
Attorney Friedman hailed the decision as a victory for free speech. He described Mr. Fiedorowicz’s yard sign as a classic example of “core political speech that is at the heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free expression.” He said Judge Clevert’s opinion “reaffirms the importance of ensuring that individual citizens can use their own property to express their political views without undue government interference.”
I have grown to dislike them. I have been to many a small town during election season, and although you see them here and there in other places, Monona seems to be obsessed with them. Some yards are decked with 4, 5 or even more. Candidates spend a great deal of money on them - I suspect for many first time candidates it is their most significant expenditure. I've seen campaigns where getting out lots of signs is where most of the energy goes! I've also seen friends and families get angry with each other over who has whose sign in their yards. How silly. We cannot ban them, but maybe more of us need to say the focus should be on candidates getting out their messages, not their signs, and refuse to put them in our yards. Holding office is a privilege that people should work for. I've yet to have a single local candidate knock on my door this year.
thanks for the Pewaukee reference. My understanding is that time limits on signs are unconstitutional, as are absolute limits on the numbers - but I can't find any indication that "one sign per seat" is. Bans on public property, including the right of way on either side of the roadway are certainly constitutional.
Yes signs are expensive - which is why allowing unfettered proliferation makes it difficult for candidates of limited resources to compete. Candidates for MG board in the past have spent more than $10,000 on these campaigns,if this becomes the norm then many qualified candidates would be locked out.
If you can raise the money, you should be allowed to spend it!!
Isn't that how our President, Barack Obama, got elected?
I'll be curious to hear your response.
Sad to say, welcome to the world of politics. Most people vote on name recognition, so the more you can get your name out the better it is for the candidate. Signs usually cost about $2.50 per and most candidates probably buy anywhere between 250 - 300 except for extreme cases. Until people really get to know the candidates and the issues, i believe signs are here to stay.
"Sad to say, welcome to the world of politics. Most people vote on name recognition, so the more you can get your name out the better it is for the candidate. Signs usually cost about $2.50 per and most candidates probably buy anywhere between 250 - 300 except for extreme cases. Until people really get to know the candidates and the issues, i believe signs are here to stay."
You know the thing is Peter knows this-I just do not understand what it is an issue know. He knows that people abuse the rules, he know these campaigns are expensive...and etc. He was involved into highly political campaigns...unless that was his twin brother who he know longer speaks with.
Actually no, I don't know this. I spent just less than $1000 on my campaign and was careful to follow the sign rules. I think avoiding escalation of the costs of campaigns is good for the district - there are a lot of excellent candidates out there but only if we can keep the barriers to entry low.
Peter,
But you saw this trend during the last referendum and the elecations after....and prior? Come on....there wasn't a sign for you on two corners and you did not look the other way?
If we write a new oridance does it include double lots? I mean it becames terribly hard to write-chickens are easier.
Guy, I agree with you in theory the cost for entry to local politics is way too high and that means blocking out great candidates. I was talking to Rep Joe P. the other day and he spent in the 10 of thoughsands in his first elecation.
Holy Crap Batman!
So-public financing of local elecations, but again....the sign business is only scratching the surface of the games people play with the financing of local elecations and it is happening right here Gotham City.
So whatcha going to do-
In all honesty...when I first moved to town, I looked at the quantity of signs someone had and that did sway my vote. There are few ways to get information on local candidates. The coverage by the local papers is often small and lopsided (like they profile one question).
I have 2 signs in my yard. It has opened dialog between my neighbors and I on who we feel are the best candidates and why. I didn't tell them who to vote for...but it allowed the candidate to get a greater exposure in town.
I think it is OK to see them for one month of the year. I kind of get a kick out of it myself
Signage is marketing for candidates, and it's probably an unwise thing to NOT use them. For many of the candidates they are simply trying to garner some name recognition. And I think they can help people get involved in what's going on. Getting a 100 or 200 signs posted around town will, hopefully, get voters to take a note who the candidates are - and what races are being contested. I hope people see the signs and make step to get involved - even if it's asking questions of neighbors and friends, reading the paper/Internet, watching or going to a forum. Too many people DON'T vote. Too many people DON'T look at the issues and candidates. If signs help them do so, great.
What is the policy about campigning on school grounds, it seems there is some confusion?
District Policy (851) prohibits the distribution of political literature on school grounds, however the same policy also allows distribution of other types of information with the approval of the appropriate administrator.
However (and this is just my purely lay opinion) the constitution doesn't allow public officials to discriminate against speech based on content (except in specific circumstances), which this policy appears to do. It seems to me it may be unconstitutional, just like the sign ordinances. We probably need to either ban all distribution of non-school related material or provide uniform conditions under which it all can be distributed.
Speech in schools can be regulated in a much stricter fashion than in other public venues and is subject to a significant body of case law- (see "Bong hits 4 Jesus") so it may be more complicated than this. Any legal-eagles out there care to weigh in?
http://www.mononagrove.org/locations/districtoffice/school_board/Policies/800/851AR.pdf
The above (removed) post accuses me of distributing literature for a candidate on school grounds. This is false: I did not and would not, nor was I aware of the distribution until Saturday. In fact, I can provide an auditorium full of people as witnesses to my whereabouts for the entire evening in question. The person you shouldn't respect is the person spreading these falsehoods. I would respectfully request that the above poster call me at 661-9534 and tell me where they got this information.
Don't need to call you.
Have your email acknowleging your error.
You screwed up, for god's sake ADMIT it.
You'll be the next one to lose your seat.
Did you learn anything tonight?
Check out Duplayee's numbers.
really? Please post this alleged email.
Post a Comment