Vaughan: Political Sign Restrictions Violate 1st Amendment

Chatham Borough Mayor Nelson Vaughan said he had "no other alternative" than to veto a sign ordinance recently approved by the council that he felt violated the First Amendment rights of borough residents and left the borough open to a lawsuit.

The ordinance amends an existing law, but several sections are retained. One such section prohibits billboards, political signs larger than 4-feet squared or political signs from being on display more than five days after an election or 30 days total. These restrictions, according to Vaughan, left the borough open to a lawsuit. 

"It's there in the First Amendment," Vaughan said. "Everything would be fine if you changed it from 'political signs' to 'all signs' because then it would be content-neutral. ... I feel very strongly that this is a slippery slope when you start restricting speech, and particularly political speech."

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, in its entirety, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The Planning Board has been reviewing and drafting changes to the sign ordinance since 2009, and it has been discussed at at least 16 meetings over the past two years. The original ordinance was not repealed, and anything not altered in the amending ordinance is still in effect.

Both the Planning Board and the council received conflicting information from attorneys about whether the restrictions to political signs were unconstitutional. The board decided to send the ordinance to the council to make a final decision.

Planning Board members approved it three times before it appeared on the council agenda in September. Vaughan voted for it at the Planning Board level all three times.

The ordinance passed on first and second readings at the Sept. 26 and Oct. 11 council meetings, respectively. A PDF version of the ordinance may be found above and to the right underneath the pictures attached to this article.

In a letter to the council dated Oct. 19, Vaughan vetoed the ordinance due to his concerns. The veto was the first in the borough's history, and was with the understanding that a subcommittee would investigate the constitutionality of the section on political signs and recommend a course of action no later than the Nov. 21 council meeting.

Motivation and Reaction

Council Member Bruce Harris, Vaughan's opponent in this year's mayoral race, said Vaughan's letter detailing the reasons for his veto were included in the Friday packet, a dossier of documents which each council member and administrative staff member receives the Friday before a council meeting containing pertinent information for that meeting. Harris received his packet on Oct. 21.

"I had multiple reactions. One was, I was saying, 'Gee, this is dated Oct. 19. He was there [at the Planning Board meeting] that night. Why didn't he mention that he was going to veto this at the Planning Board meeting?"

Vaughan said he wanted to consult with the borough attorney about his rights to veto after the ordinance passed, and "I wasn't about to do it in public [at the Oct. 11 council meeting]." He also said he did not think it was his place to tell the council how to vote, or to say that he would veto the ordinance if it passed. "It’s the council’s decision to vote, not mine," he said.

Harris said the veto also did not achieve its objective, since it causes the ordinance to revert back to the original law, which includes the same restrictions to political signs.

"Those restrictions that he's objecting to are in the existing ordinance," Harris said. "It's important that people understand that these are restrictions that have been in our ordinance for a long time. ... We haven't enforced [the restrictions on political signs, and] in order for there to be a lawsuit someone would have to be forced to take their signs down. I'm not sure you can challenge a law that's not being enforced."

Vaughan said his objective was achieved, since the veto provoked the council into a definitive action on the political sign restrictions.

"When the ordinance was approved at the second reading, [the council was] very vague about the political signs," Vaughan said. "I thought it needed to be resolved. ... Now there will be a committee with three very competent people who will be able to understand it and craft [the ordinance] to protect us."