by Phil Kent, SLF President
As appeared in Columbia County News Times, Aug. 10, 2002
The question has been asked, why is Southeastern Legal Foundation, a noted constitutional public interest law firm with dozens of U.S. Supreme Court victories to its credit, picking on poor Columbia County and its yard sign restrictions? The answer is simple: government has once again overstepped its constitutional bounds.
When contacted by our office in recent days, two County Commissioners expressed surprise that the ordinance says what it says - particularly restricting when political signs may be placed in public view, and what size the signs may be. Sure, most people prefer uncluttered roadways, just as we prefer uncluttered political discussions.
The problem for Columbia County's sign police is, unfettered political talk is the most protected of all our First Amendment free speech rights.
Just as SLF is currently battling U.S. Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold's so-called campaign finance "reform" law on behalf of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell and 71 plaintiffs in federal court in Washington, DC, the "silly" issue of political sign limitations points out that many in government - at whatever level - see the First Amendment as a mere loophole that can be conveniently closed.
Lawyers do sometimes make things more complicated than they seem. However, in this instance, the law is crystal-clear. As recently as 1996, the Georgia Supreme Court specifically banned time limits on political signs like the one contemplated in Columbia (Union City Board of Zoning Appeals v. Justice Outdoor Displays, Inc.). In that case, Justice Harris Hines points out that Union City's sign ordinance was unconstitutionally flawed, in part, because "it does not provide for permanent signs expressing the political, religious, or other noncommercial personal views of residents."
Further, by classifying "political signs" in a specific category and regulating them, the Columbia ordinance regulates on the basis of the message of the sign. Again, the regulation may sound reasonable, but it's dramatically wrong, according to the Constitution.
In fact, as a former Augusta journalist and colleague, I was taught by the same First Amendment attorney as the author of the August 3rd editorial condemning SLF's action. Perhaps getting a second opinion from another attorney is in order before waxing poetic on the constitutional merits of government restrictions on speech.
In more than a dozen U.S. Supreme Court and key federal appeals courts decisions, cited every day by hundreds of lawyers across the nation, any content-based regulation of noncommercial signs is unconstitutional - aside from the obscene or illegal.
State Sen. Joey Brush's attempts to inform county officials about his concerns spurred review by SLF's legal staff. Was that request worthy of our consideration? Indeed, anytime a government entity oversteps its authority, we are prepared to respond.
And, as for the subject matter, political yard signs may seem insignificant today; so, once, did "separate but equal," government "takings" of private property, and newspaper censorship (got your attention, Mr. Editor?!)
Sometimes you need a lawyer to hash out an issue and call another lawyer to the carpet. Constitutional rights are worth it.
