Dearborn County sign ordinance is unconstitutional

I've said some pretty harsh things about the Supreme Court over the years. All too often they create their own "law" to replace the law that they are sworn to uphold: the Constitution. Once in awhile, though, they get something right. One example of that is their 1994 decision in City of Ladue v. Gilleo. You can find the unanimous opinion on Cornell University's web site.

Margaret Gilleo fell afoul of Ladue, Missouri's sign ordinance when she put a sign protesting Desert Storm on her house. The ordinance banned most residential signs with exceptions for real estate and other commercial or temporary purposes. The opinion of the Court stated that Ladue's ordinance "...almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important. It has totally foreclosed that medium to political, religious, or personal messages. Signs that react to a local happening or express a view on a controversial issue both reflect and animate change in the life of a community. Often placed on lawns or in windows, residential signs play an important part in political campaigns, during which they are displayed to signal the resident's support for particular candidates, parties, or causes. They may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media, but residential signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression." They therefore found that the ordinance violated the First Amendment protection of free speech.

The First Amendment says in part that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." The Fourteenth Amendment says in part that "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." The Supreme Court for many years has interpreted those "privileges and immunities" as referring to the protections of the Bill of Rights, and thus applies the limitations of the Bill of Rights to actions of states and their political subdivisions.

I agree with the Court that the City of Ladue was violating the First Amendment, and that Margaret Gilleo had the right to post an issue oriented sign on her property. Her sign was the best medium for her to express her opinion on the Gulf War, and to ensure that her neighbors would see it. Any law which would prevent her putting up the sign would thus abridge her freedom of speech. The decision was based on a pretty straightforward reading of the Constitution. That must be why it was a unanimous decision.

On August 8, 2005 there was a story in the Aurora Journal-Press about a local lady, Dorothy White, who has placed a sign on her property protesting a real estate development, in violation of the county sign regulations. She has filed a federal lawsuit against the enforcement of the regulations against her sign on First Amendment grounds.

Various types of signs in Dearborn County may be erected after the owner successfully applies for a permit. White's sign does not meet the permit requirements. Section 2015 of the County's zoning ordinance specifies which signs do not require a permit. These include several types of signs, including real estate, for example. Again, White's sign does not conform to any of these descriptions. Thus her sign appears to be illegal in Dearborn County.

When Dearborn County first proposed its current sign regulations, I was concerned that it was probably unconstitutional under Ladue v. Gilleo. I wrote to someone in county government (sorry, I don't remember which official it was) urging that the county have an attorney carefully review the impact of Ladue on the county's proposal. I never got any reply and the ordinance went into effect. Now the county finds itself in the position of defending its sign restrictions in federal court.

It appears to me that the Dearborn County ordinance is substantially similar to the one that the Supreme Court struck down in Ladue. There is very little chance that the county will prevail in federal court. I doubt that the county's taxpayers are going to be thrilled to have their tax dollars spent in a futile attempt to defend this ill-considered law. The county's best course of action is to concede that its ordinance is invalid, and get busy writing one that will pass constitutional muster.