Friday, March 21, 2008

When Candidates Compensate [Update]

"My sign is bigger than yours"

In case you hadn't heard, Sam Rasoul has had 4x4 signs up all over the district for close to a year now. Only problem is that Botetourt County ordinance explicitly ban political signs from being displayed until 60 days before the election. As such the County Board of Supervisors send a letter to the the County Democratic, Republican and Libertarian Parties reminding them of said ordinances.

Result: Sam gets the Virginia ACLU to send a letter threating to litigate against any action taken against the Rasoul campaign.

81Blue's "thoughts":
  1. First off, Sam/ACLU are correct. This is a clearly unconstitutional law and an issue on which the Supreme Court has already spoken on.
  2. That being said, it is the currently unlawful to place 4X4 signs in Botetourt County.
Conclusion: I'm not sure what Sam is thinking. Yes he is standing up for principle and what he believes, but get the law changed then put up your signs. Either way, I hope this county doesn't have to go through expensive litigation because of this. As the situation stands now
  1. Yard signs don't vote (no matter how big)
  2. Sam is pissing off residents and elected officials of Botetourt County
  3. Botetourt provides less than 5% of delegates to the Sixth District nominating convention, only 7 of 147.
Update: The Drew Richardson campaign has released a statement on the Botetourt sign debacle. Click on the link for full text, below is the gist.

"I agree with the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors that political (and other) signage is largely a blight on the environment and a disservice to those who enjoy the beauty of this Valley. I also agree with the ACLU that a form of legalized compliance is probably not necessary and likely does infringe upon freedom of speech.

"I believe that common sense, good judgment and particularly respect for the opinions of those members of the community whose support is sought in an election should be sufficient reason for not putting up such signs far in advance of a general election.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rasoul is 100% right on this. ACLU too. Signs on private property expressing political views--the Supremes have always found political speech to have the highest level of protection. As it should. They like private property too. Seems Richrdson is trying to have it both ways. Signs, no signs. WTF. If he wants to run against bob, he better get a sharp message or Dens like me will howell.

Anonymous said...

Drew hit it right on the nail.

Recognizes that Botetourt is acting against established precedent. However, he chooses to abide by the wishes of Botetourt elected officials and presumably voters.

Sam, well, he encourages the blatant violation of a law that is currently on the books, pisses off people he wants to get to vote for him, and then he threatens a small rural county with expensive litigation.

Seems to me like Sam is acting similar to a four year old who throws a tantrum and breaks his own toys when he can't get a cookie.

Anonymous said...

Let's see. Richardson is in favor of First Amendment restrictions. Sounds like a Republican to me.

Anonymous said...

For once, I actually agree with the ACLU.

Belle Rose said...

A sharper than sharp comment from the Roanoke paper
www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-155716

Editorial: Get with the times on poltical signs
Some Botetourt County residents may be weary of seeing Rasoul signs, but the signs should stand.
A Botetourt County official dismisses political yard signs as "clutter," and they can be. Clutter is in the eye of the beholder. But the signs also are political speech, protected by the First Amendment.

The county should not try to enforce an ordinance on its books that limits the time when residents can express their support for candidates to 60 days before an election. Rather, supervisors should repeal the ordinance, and save the county the time and expense of trying to get 6th Congressional District candidate Sam Rasoul to gather up his signs from Botetourt yards.

Democrat Rasoul is challenging longtime Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte for his seat in the House this November. Rasoul has yet to win his party's nomination, but his big -- some 4-foot-square, some larger -- signs have been visible around the southern end of the sprawling district for, well, what seems to some like years.

Botetourt supervisors Chairman Don Assaid grumbles "it will be close to two years he's had his signs up" by the time the November election rolls around. Residents have been complaining. So the county sent letters to all political parties, reminding them of the time limits.

Actually, Rasoul's campaign headquarters reports, signs started going up last November. The campaign has distributed about 500 throughout the district, most of them smaller, standard-sized yard signs. And at this point, a campaign official said, the signs don't violate Botetourt's ordinance.

Botetourt Democrats will caucus April 19 to select delegates for the party's May convention.

Botetourt's ordinance does appear to violate the Constitution, though. The American Civil Liberties Union has asked county officials to suspend, then promptly repeal, the campaign sign restrictions or face legal action.

The ACLU cites a Supreme Court ruling that acknowledged a locality's valid interest in minimizing visual clutter, but upheld a challenge to that city's sign ordinance because lawn signs are a protected means of expressing political views.

Botetourt should make a quick, cost-free retreat.

JGFitzgerald said...

I've always wondered why it's the ACLU accused of spending a locality's money, when it's generally a locality trying to enforce (choose one: prettiness, order, good will, our local character) at the expense of the First Amendment. Isn't it the locality wasting the money by viewing the Constitution as a thing to be got around?