Signs, signs, everywhere there's (campaign) signs!

Original post

bobtoml Frequent Poster

Signing out?

Three Rivers may enforce ban on campaign signage until 60 days before primary election

By Jef Rietsma

Sturgis Journal

Published: Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Campaign signs for the county’s sheriff’s race are plentiful, but Three Rivers city residents may have to remove the signs until 60 days before the primary election.

THREE RIVERS - Three Rivers city attorney J. Patrick O'Malley has been instructed to explore whether the city can enforce a ban on campaign-related yard signs in place more than 60 days before an election.

Mayor Tom Lowry and city leaders Tuesday were unanimous in giving O'Malley support to research the matter.

The proposal stems from criticism expressed by Lowry, who said the fact signs promoting St. Joseph County's race for sheriff started appearing 14 months before the August 2008 primary election is "ridiculous."

"These signs have been in place well before the election and I think it's ridiculous, if you ask me," Lowry said.

Commissioner Daryl Griffith said Lowry's request to limit the placement of signs no sooner than 60 days before the election is reasonable and not overly restrictive.

Griffith said he has heard from a number of people who have bemoaned the idea of having to see the signs so far in advance of the August primary.

No sheriff candidate was mentioned by name Tuesday, but the balance of the signs in Three Rivers - and generously scattered throughout St. Joseph County - promote the candidacy of Dennis Allen and Brad Balk. Mike Thyng, a trooper with the Michigan State Police post in White Pigeon, is the third candidate to declare his candidacy for the position and has declined to get caught up in the sign frenzy so soon.

Neither O'Malley nor Lowry said what the consequences of a violation would be if Three Rivers ends up adopting a citywide ordinance and signs are in place prior to that 60-day window, which would begin June 6. It's likely, however, the first offense would be a verbal warning and a subsequent infraction a fine for violating a local ordinance.

The early placement of the Allen and Balk signs prompted county clerk Pattie Bender early last month to make an appeal to local media. In the days leading up to the Aug. 7 election, Bender said numerous residents were confused that the sheriff's election was last month and she asked local newspapers to help spread word that the sheriff election is not until August 2008.

Current Sheriff Matt Lori, who over the years has successfully fended off numerous Democratic challengers to the county's top law-enforcement post, is not seeking re-election. As a result, the Republican-led bid for sheriff by someone other than Lori has contributed to the dizzying number of signs throughout St. Joseph County. Lori will have served 20 years as St. Joseph County sheriff when he steps down in December 2008.

Allen currently is undersheriff and is endorsed by Lori. Balk has been a longtime deputy with the department and son of former St. Joseph County Sheriff Neubert Balk.

Replies 210 responses

Buck Forum Admin Sep 5, 2007 3:03 PM

Quote

Four Words: Private Property. Free Speech.

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

vblainev Obsessed Poster Sep 5, 2007 7:17 PM

Quote

What a noval idea Buck ! Private property ? Free speech ? Isn't that a little scary. I think we need a ordinance against people saying such things! Come on now , government knows best.

Buck Forum Admin Sep 5, 2007 7:44 PM

Quote

Four words are not enough!

This is exactly the type of thing that drives me nuts about politicians. If I want to place a sign in my yard 10 years before an election I have every right to do so. Neither the Mayor nor any of the commissioners have any business telling me when and who I can support or protest with a sign in my own yard. Which part of the 1st Amendment are you people having trouble understanding?

So starts the research...

Federal judge halts Michigan city's time limit on yard signs - First Amendment Center

CITY OF LADUE vs GILLEO - Cornell Law School

CLEVELAND AREA BOARD OF REALTORS vs THE CITY OF EUCLID - FindLaw.com

Political Yard Signs - First Amendment Center

Silencing Political Speech: Colorado's Campaign Finance Laws Stifle Political Debate - Institute of Justice

Yard-sign rules contested in another Detroit suburb - First Amendment Center

Federal judge: Wisconsin city's sign law stifled man's free speech - First Amendment Center

ACLU campaigns for Michigan towns to allow political yard signs - First Amendment Center

I think we need a ordinance against people saying such things!

Don't make jokes like that. The commission could be reading this and my try it.

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

vblainev Obsessed Poster Sep 5, 2007 9:35 PM

Quote

Ya especially if I say something about it. I'm thinking about putting a sign in my yard that say This sign has been hear for 1 week, then 1 month, then 1 year and continue for as long as I'm enjoying it! Hey maybe I could set a Guiness world record on my privite property.

Buck Forum Admin Sep 6, 2007 7:31 PM

Quote

The Three Rivers City Commission Tuesday initiated a program that would restrict campaigning yard signs for candidates running for public office. With four seats on the Three Rivers City Commission up for decision by voters in November, city commissioners say they want to limit time restrictions that yard signs may be installed for prospective candidates. Noting that two St. Joseph County Sheriff's candidates are contesting for office next August, Three Rivers Commissioners say that the hundreds of signs dotting the county landscapes, and in the city of Three Rivers, may be a bit much. Commissioners generally indicated a 60-day time limit but no limit was set; that will be up to City Attorney Patrick O'Malley who was requested to form the new election standard. The issue was raised by Mayor Thomas Lowry who is opposed in November for the mayor's job by Commissioner Allen Balog, and supported by At-large Commissioner Kenneth Cochran who is opposed by newcomer Craig Ball. Other candidates are former Three Rivers Police Chief Earl Stark for Third District Commissioner, unopposed, and First District Commissioner candidate Rowdy Keith.

Source: WLKM's News Site

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

DarylGriffith Frequent Poster Sep 6, 2007 10:40 PM

Quote

Well, I am not an English major but whoever wrote this press item composed to appear as though Commissioner Balog and Mr. Ball might be in opposition to the initiative. Neither did any such thing leaving this release either intentionally deceptive or just very poorly written. Either way WLKM has exercised poor journalistic judgment in carrying the piece on their website.

Daryl

DarylGriffith Frequent Poster Sep 6, 2007 10:53 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Stillwaters on the “Re-Elect Tom Lowry” thread

Thanks Daryl...I most heartedly agree.

Seeing as my darling husband is quite annoyed with the commission proposing to tell us what signage we can and can not put on our personal property could you please explain the merrit in trying to "create" another ordinance

Sure thing Rhonda

Actually there already is an ordinance governing campaign signs (size, placement, required markings, etc…). The only thing we are doing is looking into a reasonable limitation on how long they can be up before an election. That restriction also exists at the state level only these signs found a loophole, they do not have any date or election year on them. If they did the state would yank them.

The proposal the city is looking at is campaign signage could be placed in the 60 days preceding any election (primary or general so roughly 120 days). I see that as a reasonable limitation to prevent signs up in yards all the time for this or that. I know I for one am going to be damn sick of Balk and Allen signs this time next year and probably wouldn’t vote for either if they really intend to leave ‘em out that long. I know Buck and a few others view any limitation as unreasonable. I don’t see a “reasonable” time limit as overly burdensome on free speech. Everyone on the commission seemed in favor of at least looking at it but your free to call or write and let them know how you feel.

Daryl

Gretta Frequent Poster Sep 7, 2007 2:11 AM

Quote

One would think, and it would appear, the city attorney (gotta love him)and the city commission, would know and conclude during his and their research, that it is unconstitutional to limit how long a sign can stay on ones own personal property. Knowing who is talking about this and advocating no limits, one would think that there could be a fight to the Supreme Court if need be.

Daryl said:

I know I for one am going to be damn sick of Balk and Allen signs this time next year and probably wouldn’t vote for either if they really intend to leave ‘em out that long.

Whether or not one votes is up the them, but it is unfortunate that one freedom would have an effect on another freedom of ones right to vote. Don't allow someone else to control what you do. I know Daryl, you will still vote. [:)]

Just because we don't like something doesn't necessarily mean it should be taken down or stopped. Although it may appear tacky, it is on private property. Since when does the government knows what is in our best interest.

If someone doesn't like looking at a yard sign, there are other routes to get from point A to point B. I know, you shouldn't have to alter your "right" to go anywhere and go down any street you want but that is the beauty of living in a country with such great freedoms. Just be glad we have these people involved and hopefully getting more people out to vote. Eventhough they might be Republican(tabletop, that was for you..lol [;)])

If you don't like a song on the radio, what do you do? You change the station. If you don't like driving by a dumpy house or a drug infested neighborhood, what do you do? You stay away and don't drive there. The same thing could apply here too. With freedom comes respopnsibility. You can't fix stupid or silliness when someone puts a sign out 14 months before an election, so we are going to have to live with it. I should know. [;)]

Gretta

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."

Edited by Gretta on Sep 7, 2007 5:57 AM

DarylGriffith Frequent Poster Sep 7, 2007 7:23 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Gretta
Don't allow someone else to control what you do. I know Daryl, you will still vote. [:)]

You are right, I will. I just hope another viable candidate enters the race (in 08). It strikes me as ironic that these two candidates, running for the top law enforcement position in the county would use a loophole, blatantly flying in the face of the spirit of the law, to achieve that particular goal. It gravely calls into question the ethics and integrity of both men.

Daryl

Buck Forum Admin Sep 7, 2007 7:57 AM

Quote

Well Said Gretta.

Daryl what loophole are you speaking of?

I am not saying it hasn't happened but outside of gated communities I haven't found one instance where time limitations on political signs has held up in court.

Everyone on the commission seemed in favor of at least looking at it but your free to call or write and let them know how you feel.

I will. I am also going to get in touch with the Institute of Justice and the First Amendment Center to see if they can offer any advice/help.

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

DarylGriffith Frequent Poster Sep 7, 2007 1:08 PM

Quote

Buck,

The loophole is:

The Michigan Campaign Law prohibits the erection of campaign signs more than 60 days prior to an election. This, and other campaign sign restrictions have been enforced in the past but Mr. Balk and Mr. Allen found that by not specify a campaign year on their signs they circumvent this. The 60 day clock can't be set if they do not specify what election cycle they are running for. Incidentally, the state law is still valid (I am looking for the exact language in Michigan Election Law PA 116 but it is a ridiculously large document and I've just scratched the surface). I did find opinion #6258 by attorney general Frank Kelley (http:///www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1980s/op06258.htm) where he stated that he "believed a municipality may not limit the posting of signs to a specified number of days". In the opinion he cites some examples of local ordinances that have been struck down and also some that have been upheld. Incidentally, those that were struck down were not entirely for first amendment rights, they were more so stating that the time was unreasonably short. Please note, Attorney General opinions are just that. They are not binding, nor do they affect existing legislation. Only congress or the courts could do that and, to my knowledge, neither have done so to the state statute.

These two candidates running for a high level law enforcement office next year have found and chosen utilize a tactic to circumvent the spirit of an existing law. Given the nature of the office they seek I hold these gentlemen to a particularly high standard on this; one they have miserably failed to meet. While there action is not technically illegal it certainly does not instill in me any confidence to trust them with the enforcement of laws in my community.

Daryl

Buck Forum Admin Sep 7, 2007 1:59 PM

Quote

Interesting. Thanks for the reply.

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

Stillwaters Advocate Sep 7, 2007 2:12 PM

Quote

Well I am damn sick of seeing poodles. I hate poodles they should only be allowed outside for no more than 60 seconds. If I have to see one more poodle with it's white poofy head....I may just try to pass a city ordinance banning the length of time in which I have to look at them.

Hey! [:p] I may just start to like this "annoyance ordinancing"!

"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

Buck Forum Admin Sep 7, 2007 8:30 PM

Quote

tabletop said: This might be a valid argument if a poodle was oversized, crudely painted, and staked out in a front yard near the sight lines for 15 months at a time. Otherwise it is apples and oranges.

How about the ghoulish sign that greets people traveling north on 131 (from Constantine) that is set up near the industrial park advertising the Historic Down Town District? For those of you not familiar with what I am talking about I will try to post a picture of it on the forum tomorrow.

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

vblainev Obsessed Poster Sep 7, 2007 9:08 PM

Quote

Crack Houses blowing up in our city. Crime in our community at a high rate by anyones stats. The number of homes up for sale in Three Rivers is scary. The city cutting quality employees because of the lack of funds. The police force limiting what they can and can not investigate because of limited staffing, etc.etc.etc. and the Commission is concerning themselves with the lenth of time privite citizens have signs on their privite property ?????? What a nusiance !!