Lawn signs (also known as yard signs, bandit signs [1] and placards , [2] among other names) are small advertising signs that can be placed on a street-facing lawn or elsewhere on a property [3] to express the support for an election candidate, or political position, [4] by the property owner (or sometimes to promote a business). They are popular in political campaigns in the United States and Canada.
| Part of the Politics series |
| Political campaigning |
|---|
 |
 Politicsportal |
Lawn signs are often also placed near polling places on election day, although in most jurisdictions, there are legal restrictions on campaigning within a certain distance from a voting facility. [5] In most states, there are also restrictions on where these signs can be placed. There are some residential areas that have ordinances prohibiting any posting of yard signs.
The signs are typically placed close to the road for greater visibility. [6] In most highways a sign may not be erected so that the part of the sign face nearest a highway is within five feet of the highway's right of way line.
Signs come in various shapes and sizes, but are most often rectangular and between 12 and 40 inches on each side. They are usually produced in packages that include lawn sign wires since most of these lawn signs need to be placed on a grass or dirt surface. [7]
A common type of yard sign frame is the "H-frame". The wire frames usually have at least two tines that can be inserted into the flutes of corrugated plastic signs. The tines on the other end of the frame can be inserted into the ground. A single or double crossbar between the two tines adds strength and makes the entire frame one single unit. It also prevents the sign face from sliding down the tines.
The I-frame is essentially an H-frame without a crossbar linking the two legs. Each leg may have an abutment that acts as a stop to prevent the sign from sliding down.
Political scientist Mel Kahn states that lawn signs help build name recognition for candidates. Supposedly, each sign represents 6–10 votes for the candidate. [8] However, veteran political organizers hate the task of handing out yard signs, because they believe that time spent on procuring and distributing yard signs could be better used on other voter registration and get out the vote operations. One randomized field trial found yard signs simply reminding people to vote were able to significantly increase overall voter turnout. [9] A 2016 study found that lawn signs raise vote shares by slightly more than 1 percentage point and are "on par with other low-tech campaign tactics such as direct mail that generate ... effects that tend to be small in magnitude". [10]
In addition, it gives the requester a placebo effect of doing something substantive, while not actually volunteering to help their candidate. [11] Critics charge that "lawn signs don't vote" and dismiss their importance. [12] Theft of lawn signs is treated like any other instance of petty theft, however, signs on the rights of way in many states are considered litter and can be picked up by anyone as a public service. On several occasions, citizens who removed lawn signs on the pretext of cleaning up the clutter and eliminating driver distraction were arrested, sparking a public controversy. [13] [14]
In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported on a then-new type of yard sign designed for improved effectiveness by being cut into shapes or people to deliver a political message. The article suggested that such signs could expose 25,000 drivers per day to messages at a low cost. [15]
In the last forty years, there have been two landmark cases from the Supreme Court of the United States on the topic of sign ordinances. In City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994), a resident of Ladue, Missouri, sued the city after being told by city officials she had to remove a sign from her upstairs window protesting the Gulf War. [16] The city banned most signs within city limits but allowed the placement of for-sale signs on the lawn. The Court struck down the ordinance and held that municipal ordinances aimed to reduce visual clutter through the regulation of yard signs were inviolate of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution if the ordinance restricted free speech and could not pass strict scrutiny. [16] Passing strict scrutiny, which requires that the law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, is an incredibly difficult standard to meet. Under the standard, ordinances are presumed to be unconstitutional. [17]
The second landmark decision by the Supreme Court was Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015). In Reed, the Court reviewed the constitutionality of a sign ordinance in Gilbert, Arizona, which regulated the manner signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance banned the display of outdoor signs without a permit. However, the ordinance included over twenty categorical exemptions. For instance, "ideological" signs could be placed in the zoning district for an indeterminate amount of time and "political" signs were allowed in the district for up to 60 days before a primary election and up to 15 days following a general election. [18] However, “temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event", which directed "pedestrians, motorists, and other passersby" to events hosted by non-profit organizations, could only be displayed in the district twelve hours before the start of the event and had to be taken down an hour after the event. [19] The size of the signs were also regulated depending on the category. [19] The Court held that the signs were a content based regulation because it distinguished signs based on their topic. Under First Amendment jurisprudence, content based regulations receive strict scrutiny. The ordinance was struck down. [20]
Despite these rulings, municipalities and state governments continue to pass unconstitutional sign ordinances which are periodically struck down by courts. [21]
The yard sign protections laid out in Ladue and in Reed do not apply to many Americans because they live in a house or condominium with a restrictive covenant governed by a residential association. [22] Such associations are legally considered private entities that are not governed by the First Amendment. [22] Legal scholars have advocated for the associations to be considered state actors by the courts. [22] [23] Under the state action doctrine, if a private actor is delegated a public function by the state, the private actor is considered a state actor and therefore governed by the First Amendment. For a function to be a public function, it must be both traditionally and exclusively or near exclusively a state function. [24] On the other hand, one scholar has argued that the associations are "of a private nature" because of the legal principles governing the whole arrangements. Such associations are created by "private initiative, private money, private property and private law concepts", thus the associations should be able to enforce any restrictive covenant banning political signs. [25]
The states of California, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Wisconsin all protect the right of homeowners to display lawn signs and prohibit homeowners associations and similar organizations from regulating or banning them. [26]
Kansas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia allow homeowners associations and similar organizations to limit or ban political lawn signs only if it is already written in the bylaws. [26]
Arizona and Texas prohibit homeowners associations and similar organizations from banning lawn signs during or around an election. [26] [27] [28]
Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.
Radburn is an unincorporated community located within the borough of Fair Lawn in Bergen County, in the U.S. state of New Jersey.
Organic lawn management or organic turf management or organic land care or organic landscaping is the practice of establishing and caring for an athletic turf field or garden lawn and landscape using organic horticulture, without the use of manufactured inputs such as synthetic pesticides or artificial fertilizers. It is a component of organic land care and organic sustainable landscaping which adapt the principles and methods of sustainable gardening and organic farming to the care of lawns and gardens.
Danny Julian Boggs is an American lawyer and a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its chief judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review and strict scrutiny.
Zoning is a law that divides a jurisdiction's land into districts, or zones, and limits how land in each district can be used. In the United States, zoning includes various land use laws enforced through the police power rights of state governments and local governments to exercise authority over privately owned real property.
Arizona Proposition 102 was an amendment to the constitution of the U.S. state of Arizona adopted by a ballot measure held in 2008. It added Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution, which says: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." The amendment added a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to existing statutory bans in place since 1996. In October 2014, Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution was struck down as unconstitutional in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and is no longer enforced by the state of Arizona, which now allows and recognizes same-sex marriages.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Michigan enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Michigan in June 2024 was ranked "the most welcoming U.S. state for LGBT individuals". Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Michigan under the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage was legalised in accordance with 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity is unlawful since July 2022, was re-affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court - under and by a 1976 statewide law, that explicitly bans discrimination "on the basis of sex". The Michigan Civil Rights Commission have also ensured that members of the LGBT community are not discriminated against and are protected in the eyes of the law since 2018 and also legally upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2022. In March 2023, a bill passed the Michigan Legislature by a majority vote - to formally codify both "sexual orientation and gender identity" anti-discrimination protections embedded within Michigan legislation. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed the bill on March 16, 2023. In 2024, Michigan repealed “the last ban on commercial surrogacy within the US” - for individuals and couples and reformed the parentage laws, that acknowledges same sex couples and their families with children.
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the authority of states to regulate the electoral process, and the point at which state regulations of the electoral process violate the First Amendment freedoms.
Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994), was a free speech decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a case challenging the legality of a city ordinance restricting the placement of signs in the yards of residents of Ladue, Missouri.
Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 is an act of Parliament of India to provide for the conduct of election of the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, what constitute corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the determination of disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections. It was introduced in Parliament by law minister Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The Act was enacted by the provisional parliament under Article 327 of Indian Constitution, before the first general election.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.
California state elections in 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, with the primary elections being held on June 5, 2018. Voters elected one member to the United States Senate, 53 members to the United States House of Representatives, all eight state constitutional offices, all four members to the Board of Equalization, 20 members to the California State Senate, and all 80 members to the California State Assembly, among other elected offices.
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones, a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment for government debt collection. The case was brought by the American Association of Political Consultants, an industry trade group, and others that desired to use robocalls to make political ads, challenging the exemption unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political speech. The Supreme Court, in a complex plurality decision, ruled on July 6, 2020, that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA did unconstitutionally favor debt collection speech over political speech and violated the First Amendment.
City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of zoning restrictions on digital billboards in the city of Austin, Texas. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court ruled that the Austin regulation against off-premise digital signs was content-neutral and thus should be reviewed as a facial challenge rather than a strict scrutiny following from the reasoning in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.