Rep. Mike Weisgram introduces one of my favorite measures so far this session – An Act to permit the display of campaign signage in municipalities prior to the beginning of absentee voting.

State Representative Mike Weisgram has introduced House Bill 1099, one of my favorite measures so far this session. An Act to permit the display of campaign signage in municipalities prior to the beginning of absentee voting, which actually standardizes the ridiculous patchwork of county and municipal ordinances that sometimes go so far as to be of questionable legality when it comes to when and how you can display campaign signs. Weisgram proposes a standard set of rules in House Bill 1099:

An Act to permit the display of campaign signage in municipalities prior to the beginning of absentee voting.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota:

Section 1. That chapter 9-30 be amended with a NEW SECTION:

A campaign sign that is less than four square feet in area may be placed on private property in a residential zone adjacent to a transportation right-of-way by or with the permission of the property owner no more than forty-five days prior to the beginning of absentee voting in a primary or general election and may continue to be displayed through election day. A municipality shall determine the time after a primary or general election when campaign signs must be removed.

A campaign sign that is less than thirty-two square feet in area may placed on private property in a business, commercial, or industrial zone adjacent to a transportation right-of-way by or with the permission of the property owner no more than forty-five days prior to the beginning of absentee voting in a primary or general election and may continue to be displayed through election day. A municipality shall determine the time after a primary or general election when campaign signs must be removed.

A campaign sign may not be placed in a right-of-way and may not be placed in such a way as to obstruct or impede the visibility of the right-of-way. A municipality may impose reasonable regulations on the illumination of the sign or sound emanating from or in proximity to the sign to protect the safety of those who use a right-of-way against any encroachment by a campaign sign.

Advertising billboards, electronic signage, murals, or other larger permanent structures are exempt from the provisions of this section.

For the purposes of this section, the term, campaign sign, means a sign identifying and urging voter support or opposition for a particular election issue, political party, ballot question, or advocating a candidate for public office.

Read that here.

Now, I’l also be the first to point out that technically, if this would be passed, I think this law might be able to be fought on the basis of constitutionality, just as most all city ordinances could, because of the ruling in Reed v Town of Gilbert…

Government regulation of speech is content based if a law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed. This commonsense meaning of the phrase “content based” requires a court to consider whether a regulation of speech “on its face” draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys. Supreme Court precedents have also recognized a separate and additional category of laws that are considered content-based regulations of speech: laws that cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. Those laws must also satisfy strict scrutiny.

Read it here.   Another good analysis is here..

Temporary yard signs are springing up all around town. Town council wants to reduce the clutter, but also wants to respect the free speech rights of the community. Council is considering new rules that will allow campaign signs during election season, event signs within a day of the event, and ideological signs anytime. It seems like a reasonable balance—allowing the signs but limiting them to a relevant time-frame. Can the town’s regulations distinguish among signs this way?

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision says no. Such distinctions are unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech.

Of course, someone has to spend the money to litigate it if you really want a governing entity (whether it’s the city or the state) to budge on the rules.

But that doesn’t mean that I can’t like the legislation just for the fact that it applies some consistency to an utter mish-mash of regulations we have across the state.