FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, August 21, 2008
CONTACT:
ACLU Media Relations: (786) 363-2737 or media@aclufl.org
MELBOURNE VILLAGE, Fla. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida sent a letter to Steve Gaul, mayor of the Town of Melbourne Village, asking the Town to revoke the rule requiring residents to apply for and obtain a permit to display political signs in their front yards. The ACLU says the rule is unconstitutional because it singles out political signs as a category requiring a permit and does not require a permit for other signs, including temporary signs or directional signs. Furthermore, “a property owner’s right to display political signs constitutes pure speech that is protected by the First Amendment,” according to the letter sent by the ACLU.
“Government cannot require property owners to obtain a permit before expressing their political opinion,” said Maria Kayanan, Associate Legal Director, ACLU of Florida. “The Town of Melbourne Village cannot make political speech more burdensome than other speech and if the Town tries to enforce the rule or doesn’t take steps to revoke it within 30 days, we may challenge it in federal court. As a concerned resident said to us, ‘Sometimes constitutional protection comes one tiny village at a time.’”
Melbourne Village is located in Brevard County and is home to approximately 700 residents. The letter was sent to the mayor yesterday on behalf of a property owner in Melbourne Village. The letter specifically asks for the town to:
• Cease any attempts to enforce this provision;
• Not remove political signs for which no permit was requested or obtained; and
• Not seek to fine any property owner who has not applied for or obtained a permit for political signs displayed on their property.
The ACLU’s letter to the City outlines the unconstitutionality of applying the Town’s permit requirement to categorically suppress free speech based on content without a compelling government interest.
The full text of the letter follows, or can be viewed in PDF here: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/melbournevillage.pdf
The full text of the letter follows:
August 20, 2008
The Hon. Steve Gaul
Mayor, Town of Melbourne Village
555 Hammock Road
Melbourne Village, FL 32904
Re: Unconstitutionality of Town’s ordinance regarding political signs
Dear Mayor Gaul:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (“ACLU”) has been contacted by a property owner in the Town of Melbourne Village who has informed us of the Town’s rule or ordinance or rule titled “Political Signs in Melbourne Village.” To avoid any confusion as to which signage rule we refer, we attach a copy to this letter. We believe that the Town’s requirement that property owners apply for and obtain permits for political signs on private property is facially unconstitutional. To avoid any legal action, the ACLU urges the Town to (1) cease any attempts to enforce this provision; (2) not remove political signs for which no permit was requested or obtained, and (3) not seek to fine any property owner who has not applied for or obtained a permit for political signs displayed on their property.
A property owner’s right to display political signs constitutes pure speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that “the First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). The upcoming elections - local, state and national - present your Town’s residents with many hotly contested issues and candidates for their consideration. The Town cannot require anyone wishing to display a political sign to obtain a permit request signed by the property owner or resident; that requirement clearly burdens protected speech.
Because the Town specifically singles out political signs as a category requiring a permit, and does not require a permit for other signs, including “memorial signs, tablets or plates”; “professional name plates”; “temporary signs … announcing recreational or special events,” or “directional signs to historical or geographical points of interests,” the permit requirement for a political sign is a content based restriction which must be supported by a compelling governmental interest. Further, the means chosen to effect such interests must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. See Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988).
The ACLU believes that the Town’s permit requirement for political signs does not meet this heavy, strict scrutiny burden. See Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that City of Alabaster, Alabama could not constitutionally limit display of political signs to residential areas); Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2005) (striking down Neptune Beach’s sign ordinance that exempted from regulation certain types of signs, including government and religious flags); Dimmit v. City of Clearwater, 985 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1993) (striking down Clearwater’s ordinance that required property owner to obtain permit before erecting or altering most signs, but exempted certain types of signs, such as flags).
The Town’s assurance that “[a]pplications are automatically approved if the above criteria are met” does not save the Town’s official policy. Because permits are required for political signs but not for others, the permitting requirement treats political signs differently and is therefore unconstitutional based on the cases we cite above.
The Town of Melbourne Village has a rich history and heritage. Although it is a small town, its governing body is no less bound by the Bill of Rights than the County, the State, or the federal government. As a concerned resident of Melbourne Village eloquently stated to us, “Sometimes constitutional protection comes one tiny village at a time.”
Based on the above analysis, the ACLU asks you, as Mayor of Melbourne Village, and Commissioners Calenda, Carroll, Griffith, Howell, Jones and Sinton, not to enforce this rule or ordinance, and to take whatever steps are necessary to rescind or revoke it. Please inform us in writing within thirty days of this letter, or by Monday, September 22, 2008, whether you are willing to voluntarily take steps to cease any enforcement attempts, and to revoke or rescind the ordinance.
Your prompt attention to this matter is necessary to avoid legal action, particularly in light of the upcoming elections. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Maria Kayanan, Esq.
Associate Legal Director
ACLU of Florida
For additional information on the ACLU, visit our Web site at: www.aclufl.org.
# # #
