It’s interesting to see that Halloween signage has less regulation than a political sign under County Land Use Regulations.
When I asked the Archuleta County Planning Director why I couldn’t put up a large campaign sign that a private owner and I agreed upon with one another, in our protected association… but Halloween is Universally Exempt for 60 days of decoration and signage in any way… I was received with derision and accused of arguing with her about Wayne Bryant’s campaign, because his signs are being torn down, and she is requesting a $50 fee per sign (about the cost of each sign, a near 100% tax on political speech through fees.)
In fact, I was asking for my own campaign and never brought up Wayne Bryant in my emails.
I asked the following question: “What is the government’s interest in regulating political speech and signage?”
I’m asking because the Supreme Court has ruled political speech to be the most protected speech, under which strict scrutiny is required (Mill v. State of Alabama, 1966) for government regulation. As a matter of fact, USLegal states, “circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations are all forms of core political speech, so long as they in some way address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.”
The SCOTUS, again, states that content-based speech cannot be regulated on private property by government in City of Ladue v Gilleo, 1994.
This information is fairly simple to find.
That just isn’t what the government is supposed to do.
However, the infamous, “Whoopsie! We didn’t know before we did something illegal…” position I am constantly hearing from those in power is why many of us are awestruck at the abuse of power we are experiencing daily from government and other entities.
How many times do we have to watch them explain they didn’t know, or don’t know, before we ask that they do their due diligence before moving forward with official decisions?
It is beginning to look malicious and that they are acting like they didn’t know, when, in fact they do. As a matter of fact, I’ve heard from the CDC all the way down to local election officials and others that they weren’t aware they were making a mistake — despite being told information or attempted to be told information by people they just simply didn’t like and didn’t feel a need to listen to before hurriedly making an official decision that flies in the face of the law.
What does this mean? Surely “they” (not so elusive these days) aren’t maliciously violating rights. There is no way they would intentionally do that, for example, by placing fees on content-based speech, arbitrarily.
I was told by one Commissioner that he didn’t know about a SCOTUS ruling and could not make a comment because he is not a lawyer.
I have yet to receive the reason for compelling government interest from either Ms. Flowers or Mr. Weaver, who was added to the email chain, but it is clear through years of First Amendment law that political signage is a protected right that is much more protected than Halloween decorations, and regulation must be looked at under Communication Laws Strict Scrutiny legal standard, as discussed by the highest courts in the land on more than one occasion.
Rachel Suh
Pagosa Springs
The Pagosa Daily Post welcomes submissions, photos, letters and videos from people who love Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Call 970-903-2673 or email pagosadailypost@gmail.com