/

Town official: Political sign ban on private property will not be enforced

7 mins read
Candidate Lance Harvell, R-Farmington, has campaign signs posted on the lawn of  a High Street property. Town officials at first told him he had to take down all signs on private property, but have rescinded that order while they seek a legal opinion  on the matter.

FARMINGTON – Town officials have backed off an attempt to ban a local candidate from posting campaign signs on private property while they seek a legal opinion  on the matter.

Rep. Lance Harvell, R-Farmington, joined other candidates around the state to protest the interpretation of local ordinances regarding election signs. He said he was told this week by Farmington town officials that he had to take down all of his campaign signs posted on private property until the ordinance’s allowable 42-day period kicks in on Sept. 26.

“The First Amendment is dead in Farmington,” Harvell said sounding upset last night.

Candidate protests are sprouting up like the signs themselves in the towns of Alfred, Lewiston and now Farmington, all of which have similar sign ordinances.

Lance Harvell

Farmington Town Manager Richard Davis said the town is not enforcing a ban and has asked for a legal opinion from the Maine Municipal Association on the matter of the town’s regulation of posting election signs on private property.

“We may have over-reached,” Davis said of the local ordinance. He found it interesting that the same sign ban issue is being raised is towns across the state. “It’s something that was overlooked when all the sign ordinances were based on other communities’ ordinances,” he said.

In 1999, the town of Farmington adopted a near-identical ordinance to be in line with the state law that allows posting campaign signs without permit inside the public’s right of way 42 days prior to an election. Differences adopted by the town call for a quicker take down time of three days after an election, as opposed to the state, which allows seven days.

State law 23 M.R.S.A. §1922 does allow for local sign ordinances to be stricter. Farmington’s original sign ordinance was amended in the following years to also prohibit campaign signs from most traffic islands in the right of way after public safety concerns were raised  for driver visibility after the popular patches of political signs were said to obstruct traffic views.

“They said it’s always been interpreted by the town ‘to apply to all election/campaign signs without permit – whether inside or outside the right of way,'” Harvell read from an email he received from the code enforcement office yesterday.

The incumbent candidate said he usually likes to get the signs up on supporters’ front lawns a week before the Farmington Fair because the fair draws big crowds to town. “This is the first time anyone has said anything to me,” Harvell noted.

He refused to take any of the signs down because a ban on them on private property is “unconstitutional,” Harvell said.

Zachary L. Heiden,  legal director at the ACLU of Maine Foundation in Portland, agreed with Harvell today.

“It is unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” Heiden said of the ban on private property posting. He cited the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision, City of Ladue v Gilleo in which the court ruled in favor of property owner who posted anti-war banners on her front lawn and was told by the city officials, based on their sign ordinance that restricted the placement of signs in the yards of residents, to remove her signs.

Heiden said he’s heard from the towns of Alfred, Lewiston and now Farmington regarding the issue and is drafting an informative letter to sen to towns across the state.

The ACLU is requesting that cities and towns with these ordinances immediately abandon enforcement and act to remove the laws from their books. They say local governments cannot limit the time a political sign is posted on a resident’s property, even if the issue is not current or the election has passed;
require a fee to post a sign; impose unreasonable limits on sign size, placement from curb or number of signs posted per yard; or treat political signs less favorably than other types of lawn signs.

In an email, Shenna Bellows, executive director of the ACLU of Maine said, “In Maine communities, political lawn signs play a crucial role in political campaigns, so we want to make sure it’s clear that people have the right to display political signs.”

Davis believes the confusion may have come in the ordinance that allows for an election sign exemption with regards to the scope of town regulation of where and for how long they can be posted. But, Davis stressed, that can’t supersede First Amendment rights. He added that nothing will be done until he receives a legal opinion.

On hearing the town had rescinded its order today, Harvell said he was glad to hear it. “Political signs on private property goes to the core of First Amendment rights.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

48 Comments

  1. These signs are legal. Looks like the town stepped on itself here,bigtime. Farmington city officials: You may want to move along to more important issues, before you look worse than you already do. There you go.

  2. I think that Lance is absolutely right in this case, particularly considering the preferred position of political speech in the 1st Amendment.

  3. The Roman Empire had no First Amendment free speech protections, nor anything resembling a Bill of Rights Yet archaeologists have dug up dozens of programmata (political graffiti) painted on the walls of shops and houses all over Pompeii.

    The voters elected two mayors (duoviri) and two commissioners of public works (aediles) every year. It appears that even slaves and women (who could not vote, but had an interest in who governed the city) added to the scribbling.

    “I ask that you make (i.e. elect) Gaius Julius Polybius aedile. He bakes good bread.” tells us that “issues” were not always foremost in the campaigns.

    “I ask that you elect Gaius Gavius Rufus aedile; it is I, Granius, who asks this” tells us that personal endorsements played their role.

    “Valens, elect Popidius Ampliatus aedile, and that man will do the same for you” hints at corrupt deals.

    “His little darling supports Claudius for duovir” suggests that scandal played a role.

    “All the late sleepers support Vatia for aedile” is rather obscure but shows that frivolity had a place in Pompeiian politics.

    It’s good to know that American campaigns have risen above such vulgarities, but puzzling to find that some of Maine’s municipal authorities haven’t caught up with the Constitution of the United States. All the more so since they are obliged to take an oath or affirmation to uphold it.

  4. One of the unsung hero’s of this story is Ryan Morgan who has repeatedly brought this issue up as unconstitutional. CUDOS to RYAN!!!

  5. “We may have over-reached” he says……NO, you OVER-REACHED, period. And you don’t need counsel to discuss how the First Amendment applies here. It’s private property.

  6. I second the Kudos to Ryan Morgan. When he took the selectman’s seat I contended for it caused me no real distress since I never doubted his ability and principle.

  7. Well, good then! you go Lance! However, if signs are legal on private property, then I’d like to have a few more signs on my property advertising my business. Where is my freedom of speech when I have to pay for a permit to have a sign and then have a limit on the size and number of signs I can have?

  8. You GO LANCE !
    Maybe fixing Town roads should be more important to the Selectmen than worrying about political signs, which are legally posted, on private property.

  9. Yeah our selectman Ryan Morgan did a great bringing this up at the last meeting. He has always been a great supporter of our first amendment rights. I remember he was a big help when the town wanted to stop allowing people to gather signatures on petitions.

  10. They told me I couldn’t put signs up for a FREE community Dinner and Concert at Church, so I built a big sign in the back of my pickup, kind of like the advertising trucks in the big cities! No violations of any motor vehicle laws or any other laws I know of! After the Event 9/20 I’ll put your sign up on my board Lance!! Standing up for our American rights!!!

  11. Such bullcrap. The ordinance was passed because some people were putting up HUGE signs made out of plywood and they blocked visibility at intersections. So if someone got killed because of the political sign, would they SUE??? Why risk it? Eliminating all signs seemed to be the most sensible thing to do. One question I asked was the areas beside places like the cemeteries. Nope, the town can’t do anything about those because it’s within the DOT right of way. Plus in the major intersections, there would be 40 signs for one candidate. Overkill, for sure.
    ACLU??? Come on. What happened to COMMON SENSE?

  12. The signs are stupid. Who would base their vote solely on a sign on someone’s lawn? This misinformed person shouldn’t be voting at all if the sign is the reason. Anyway, Lance has done a great job and appreciated by almost everyone. He has no competition.

  13. I have known Lance for 37 years, and he is one of those people you can trust to be honest and to try his best to do the right thing, I may live out of your district but you have my total support here

  14. West Farmington this only deals with signs on personal property that is all. The town has a right to stop signs on there land and the state land as well but has no right to stop political speech ( a sign) on private property.

  15. Just sayin…………….. I have NEVER voted for anyone based upon a road-side sign no matter how long it has been in place!! Guess it might be tied to ‘name recognition’ in some way on Election Day, but it’s a mystery to me! Rah-rah for the 1st amendment, but save your money for the signs and take your grandkids/honey/best friends for ice cream at Giffords. You’ll get MORE lovin’ that way!

  16. Its hard to believe any town manager or for that matter, ANYONE would not have the sense to simply think about this for a minute to themselves, and come to the conclusion that: “nahh, I guess we can move on to more pressing matters people, like, maybe doing something about a certain road that is about to fall into a certain river before fall rains come” But this thinking never entered the town managers head. Farmington needs a changeout of town leaders I would think.

  17. The signs help people know who is running for office so we can educate ourselves. Lets not infringe on our rights especially on your own property.

  18. Farmington Officials were caught shooting and then aiming later. Actually, it was more like shooting, and then looking down at your gun and wondering how it went off in the first place. Whoops.

  19. i think that we should beable to put signs up when we want to and have the right to do what we want on our property . it should not be left up to a town official who doesnt live in our community . he has no right to tell the people of farmington what and how we do things . further more its just a sign and does it really hurt anyone ?

  20. Richard Davis is the same guy who tried to ban political activity in public places in 2009 and backed down only when a couple of state organizations told him he was out of line. I was a visitor at the BOS meeting when Davis pushed through his ban that year with a 3-2 vote of selectmen (I’m pretty sure Ryan Morgan was one of the two who voted against him). Davis brushed aside my protests (after all, I’m no kind of big shot). What I can’t figure out is how do we get rid of town officials who have no respect for our civil liberties.

  21. How were these ordinances ever approved in the first place? We can all appreciate the desire of property owners to not have their neighborhoods cluttered with political propoganda, but we also should realize that a very basic and fundamental american right has been squashed by a municipal ordinance. If the law were to be enforced, what are the penalties for noncompliance? Who has the unfortunate job of coming onto a persons property to forcibly remove their political sign? If the Farmington officials need to consult the MMA to figure this out then I would agree that major changes are needed.

  22. Political signs are dumb. Who drives down the road and says oh there’s a pretty sign I think I will vote for them?!

  23. If the property owner wants the sign on their land. It should be there. Government should not be stopping them. As long as it isn’t drugs.

  24. I think the signs are an eyesore. Also, after the election, the signs remain. I say, put up the signs, but each candidate should be fined for each sign that’s still up after the election.

  25. I’m with Jason. If I had a political sign on my lawn maybe I’d consider taking it down of the town would lower my tax bill. We are talking about privately owned property here. If a municipality is going to take away some of the private-ness then the municipality should pay for it, and mine’s not for sale.

  26. oh yeah, and interesting how the republican got singled out. Welch has a few signs around town too.

  27. The signs on your lawn don’t tell me who to vote for. They simply tell me who YOU are voting for. And I don’t care.

  28. Deborah, I tend to agree with you, the signs are an eyesore, however they are a legal eyesore. You can’t force something or someone out of the public viewing eye range on private property just because it is unpleasant to look at! I’m not crazy about looking at overweight people in skimpy clothing, not to happy about looking at the skinny ones doing it either in public, but it is their right to do so! Here’s a thought… IT will eventually go away so don’t look. Don’t read the sign if it really bothers you or do the reverse and vote for the other guy just out of spite. Hey, I love living in a free country! I love my freedom of speech rights! I love reading all of the different points of view in these columns! Hey Lance… DO WE LIVE IN A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT! I Thank you bulldog for my right to state my one small opinion!

  29. Landowner rights above states or towns rights always ! @ Sue B what do drugs have to do with anything in this post ?

  30. Censored?! Perhaps I was a bit vicious- let’s reword… This is the 2nd strike for the town manager regarding infringement of first amendment rights. What happens with the third strike?

  31. And Tom Knight…yes, you DID change Selectmen. Now you have a representative from UMF, which is exactly what you wanted, I”m sure.

  32. Yes you should be able to put any sign you want on your lawn- dance naked and bark at the moon if you like! I’m just saying I knew Lance was running long before hundreds of ugly signs told me. If lawn signs are how you learn about current events please don’t vote.

  33. Why be so negative? I worked 60+ hours a week and do not pick up the paper or turn on the tv on a daily basis. The signs are a nice reminder as to who is running. Who are you to tell people not to vote. I do not just vote based on signs. Maybe you should be a little more positive. The problem with are society today is that people are to busy judging other’s and thinking that they are so much better than everyone. Maybe I will just close my eyes while I vote and let the lead land where it may. Maybe next time I will just ask you who I should vote for!!!

  34. @to Captain Planet,
    Now you’re coming around! When you vote just look for the “R’s; no need to ask me every time. That’s a positive thing, kinda like cleaning garbage off lawns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.