Signs

Council to limit when election signs go up on lawns

When should election signs be permitted on your lawn? When does the candidate’s right to free expression collide with others’ rights to a clutter-free landscape? And should incumbents make up new rules to limit the participation of those who would run against them?

Elections—even municipal elections—are heavily regulated affairs. The regulations are often forged in court by judges weighing big topics such as freedom of expression, fair access, and funding.

Indeed, the County’s Clerk produced a fivepage report outlining the rules around election signs for the upcoming municipal election on October 26. The report was tabled at a committee of council meeting last week. It emphasizes fairness and the “guaranteed right” to political expression while balancing matters of safety and the aesthetics of the community.

The rules governing election signs were last used in 2022. The Clerk’s office expected a fair amount of public pushback then. It received eight complaints.

The report seemed rock solid. All in favour?

But wait. There are few files that a council of 14 can’t find a way to tinker with. Few potential landmines it manages to sidestep.

Mayor Steve Ferguson argued that a provision in the bylaw allowing election signs to be erected once nominations are accepted (May 1) is much too long. He worries about signs competing with tourism businesses for “eyeballs”. He proposed delaying election signs to August 22. Two months is enough, reasoned Mayor Ferguson.

His proposal met a lukewarm response.

“I’m not overly concerned,” said Picton councillor Phil St-Jean. “While there may be a few people who show up in July and put signs out, people aren’t paying attention at that time.”

“It makes me laugh,” said St-Jean. “What a waste.

Despite his indifference, St-Jean supported the mayor’s motion. So did Councillor Kate Mac- Naughton. While she said she didn’t want to favour incumbents and was eager to ensure a level playing field, she, too, was also for limiting the time elections signs are permitted.

The Clerk, Catalina Blumenberg, interjected to remind Council of a recent Superior Court decision that ruled that the Township of Russell had placed an unreasonable limit on the amount of time candidates and third parties could place election signs—that such limitation was contrary to an individual’s freedom of expression, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the township lacked strong provisions limiting open house, event, or advertising signs, and, as such, it was selectively targeting those seeking municipal office.

A majority of Council didn’t see the findings in Russell applying to them.

Councillor Chris Braney, however, argued that Council should not be touching these rules, that it would be viewed by the public as obviously self-serving to existing council members.

“Limitations benefit the incumbent,” observed the Hillier councillor. “It is our duty to encourage people to run. Make it a level playing field. I don’t want to limit participation.”

Councillor Bill Roberts said he would leave it to “the folks who make these decisions,” implying the Clerk’s department. But when the vote came, he too supported the mayor’s motion.

The decision must yet be ratified at a council meeting on March 24.