Council Looks at Political Sign Ordinance Changes

By Adam Swift

The old saying about there being nothing being certain in life except death and taxes might want to make room for controversies about political signs during election season.

Monday night, the City Council voted to hold a public hearing on a change in the city’s political sign ordinance. The motion from Ward 3 Councillor Anthony Cogliandro comes in the wake of a Supreme Court decision ruling that limiting political signs on private property is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment.

The city ordinance states that no political sign shall be erected in a residential district until 30 days prior to the date of a primary or preliminary election. In a business or industrial district, the signs may be put up 45 days before the election, and signs must be removed within 10 days after the election.

Adherence to that ordinance has always been iffy at best, with candidates traditionally jockeying to be the first one to spread the word about their candidacy with city-wide signs.

“I respect people who follow this in respect to the Constitution, and I respect people who follow this in respect to the city ordinance,” said Cogliandro.

But at the end of the day, Cogliandro said the city ordinance is unenforceable because of the Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert Supreme Court ruling.

“Truthfully, it has been causing issues in this city, and that was my main reason for putting this in,” said Cogliandro. “I’ve been told in the past that there is a gentleman’s agreement, and every year, someone starts putting out signs, and everyone else starts following suit.”

Cogliandro said he spoke to the city solicitor, who stated that there were some parts of the ordinance that could be upheld, but that much of it cannot be because it would be unconstitutional.

Cogliandro said that if the political sign ordinance is repealed, there should still be some kind of public agreement among candidates about when signs start going up before an election.

Councilor-at-Large Anthony Zambuto praised Cogliandro’s motion.

“As he said, this was unconstitutional from day one, but it was always a gentlemen’s agreement; the only problem with a gentlemen’s agreement is that you need gentlemen,” said Zambuto. “There is always someone who wants to break it, and I’m as guilty as anyone for putting signs out too early because everyone else did and I jumped in. I’m not comfortable with that, but it is a constitutional issue, and the last thing I ever want to do is go against the Constitution.”

Ward 6 Councillor Richard Serino agreed that there may be some parts of the ordinance that could still be viable, such as regulations on the sizes of the signs allowed.

The sign ordinance change was unanimously ordered to a public hearing, following which, it will be taken up in a council subcommittee for further action.