HILLSBOROUGH: Resident says campaign signs should be banned on township land

By Gene Robbins, Managing Editor
   Election time is coming.
   That means road signs along roads and public land will crop up more and more before Nov. 6.
   Should Hillsborough ban them on municipal property, a resident asked the Township Committee last week.
   ”It’s that time of year again,” said David Brook, a resident of Winding Way. “Based upon what I have seen in the past, it will not be long before this municipal building, our parks and schools will be plastered with campaign signs from both parties.”
   He said he personally believed it was ugly and inappropriate “since political signs placed on municipal property may give people the impression that our government endorses certain candidates and ideologies.”
   He presented the Township Committee on Sept. 25 his own research that allegedly showed Hillsborough was the only one of the 21 municipalities in Somerset County to allow political signs on municipal property.
   Some limit signs by ordinance, others informally by a handshake agreement between political parties, he said.
   Hillsborough has a system that may even encourage the posting of campaign signs, he said. A program allows political parties to apply for and receive a free permit to post campaign signs in town, including on all municipal properties, he said.
   Township Committeeman Doug Tomson told Mr. Brook it might be an impingement of freedom of speech to limit signs other than 100 feet from a polling place.
   This year’s candidates for Township Committee generally had little problem with the current policy.
   Mayor Carl Suraci, a Republican, noted at the end of the week that he asked staff to research the issue, but said, “I’m hesitant to restrict political free speech further than our current ordinance, which limits campaign signs in the public rights-of-way to 30 days prior to Election Day. I believe our current ordinance is reasonable and has proven effective.”
   He said he had only seen campaign signs in the rights-of-way (between roads and sidewalks) at the municipal complex and parks.
   ”Of course, if we had seen signs placed in our parks that interferes with the public use of those facilities, our staff would remove the signs. That’s just common sense,” he said.
   Michael Goldberg, a Democratic candidate for Township Committee and the township party chairman, said he was comfortable with the current sign ordinance.
   ”We (Democrats) always are aware of where we place our signs and make sure they do not impact public safety in any way,” he said. “Our signs inform voters and increase the public awareness. That being said, we are aware that too many can constitute a perception of ‘sign litter,’ and the public has a right to be concerned.”
   His running mate, Jim Farley, said signs do pile up.
   ”In my view, it indeed becomes a needless political eyesore,” he said. “Voters already have their minds made up by the time they reach the polling areas.”
   Judd Mandell , an independent candidate in the race, didn’t want to deter voter enthusiasm.
   ”One of the problems in America today is the lack of voter turnout,” he said. “As a result, we must do everything in our power to reach out to all Americans to encourage them to vote. While I understand that some may not like the campaign signs, it is a way to reach out to the community to ensure that they know that there is an election going on and who is running, especially during elections that are not a part of national campaigns.”
   Maybe there could be limitations, he said, like a minimum distance allowed between signs to discourage abuse of space while still encouraging voter turnout.
   Greg Burchette, the other Republican candidate, said banning campaign signs altogether in public places is a violation of the First Amendment right of freedom of political speech.
   He said the township’s ordinance is “quite reasonable so it is honored by candidates.”
   Even that is honor is essentially voluntarily, he said, “because even that ordinance could probably not be upheld in court. We do not need to subject the township’s taxpayers to a costly First Amendment lawsuit by passing an unreasonable ordinance, when a reasonable ordinance is already honored.”
   ”We’re sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution,” Mr. Suraci said. “We don’t pass ordinances that may violate these documents just because something is not to one’s liking.”