The sign, which challenged the county’s proposed critical areas ordinance, was posted on private property, McClanahan said.
Not so, says Mike Matlock, Tumwater’s community-development director, who was part of the crew that removed the sign. He says the political sign was posted on public right of way, where such signs are prohibited by city ordinance.
(One interesting twist on this he-said/he-said conflict is that with his lawsuit, McClanahan is, in effect, suing his brother — Tumwater Councilman Neil McClanahan, among others).
In his court challenge, supported by the conservative Freedom Foundation, Barney McClanahan asks for just $1 in damages, attorney fees, additional relief deemed “just and equitable,” and – here’s the clincher – a declaration that the city’s sign ordinance limiting political yard signs is unconstitutional.
We believe that would be a mistake. Cities and counties must be able to set reasonable limits on campaign yard signs.
We have often called such signs “litter on a stick.” They are a public eyesore that often linger long after the election is over.
Candidates for public office and those running political campaigns for or against ballot propositions will tell you that yard signs are essential – a necessary ingredient of every successful campaign. Their presence keeps the candidate’s name or the ballot issue before the voters and serves as a constant reminder of coming elections and the important decisions facing voters.
Candidates and issue advocates often engage in “sign wars.” This practice consists of trying to one-up the opposition by putting up more signs in more strategic locations than the other guys. Sign wars often include the destruction or removal of the opponent’s signs. It can get ugly.
Then there are the environmental consequences. Some candidates and ballot proposition workers have a sloppy attitude when it comes to removal of the signs after the election. We’ve seen yard signs alongside public roadways weeks, months, even years after the election has passed.
Hence, the “litter on a stick” label.
Candidates insist that yard signs are a matter of free speech. Some, like Sen. Mike Carrell, R-Lakewood, think that municipalities have no right to regulate political signs. He introduced a bill in the Legislature in 1999 that would have prohibited the state, counties, cities and towns from imposing any kinds of limits on political signs – not on their size or location. Can’t you just imagine life-size cutouts of candidates in city or state parks? Yuck. Fortunately, Carrell’s bill went nowhere.
Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater have special sections in their municipal codes governing political signs.
• Olympia: Political signs may not be placed in public parks or attached to traffic safety devices, telephone poles, power poles, or other public utility facilities. They may be placed on private property or within the public right-of-way, provided that the sign is placed no less than 10 feet from the paved edge or traveled portions of the roadway. Olympia’s ordinance says that all political signs must be removed within five days after the election. Candidates or committees sponsoring ballot issues can be fined for violating the law.
• Lacey: Political signs must be placed on private property only and must not be larger than 10 square feet. They cannot be in the public right of way. Signs must be removed within seven days after the election. Candidates or committee members are responsible for the removal of signs and can be fined for violations.
• Tumwater: Political campaign signs must be erected on private property and not on the right of way. Candidates or committee members have 15 days after the election to remove all signs and, again, may be fined for not following the rules.
Should cities like Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater be allowed to set limits on campaign yard signs?
Absolutely!
Requiring the offensive signs to be posted on private property or removed a week after the election is not an infringement on anyone’s right to free speech. Let’s hope the courts agree in the McClanahan case.
