ACLU wins day-old political-sign suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Within a day of filing a federal lawsuit regarding Plainfield's ordinance restricting political campaign signs, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana can claim another win on an issue that's becoming more prominent statewide.

The civil liberties group filed a suit Tuesday morning in the U.S. District Court's Southern District of Indiana challenging the town's 10-year-old ordinance, which prohibits residents from posting political signs more than 30 days before an election and more than 10 days afterward. Resident Nick Crews had received a letter Sept. 10 from the local planning department notifying him he'd illegally posted a sign in support of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on his front lawn.

Crews removed the sign and contacted the ACLU.

In response, Plainfield has agreed to a 90-day enforcement moratorium and to allow residents to place political signs in their yards, town attorney Mel Daniels said. A board meeting is set for Monday to announce the resolution, and officials will then look at revising the ordinance, he said.

This case is the first time since the ordinance passed that anyone has questioned it, Daniels said. The ordinance was passed to help maintain the town's appearance and also ensure that all signs are taken down within a reasonable time frame following an election, he said.

"We'll go through the caselaw on that and see what needs to be done," he said. "But the restriction on time looks like it isn't supportable, and we'll probably have to take it out."

This is the fourth suit the state ACLU has filed and won relating to political signs and free speech rights, according to the organization's legal director Ken Falk. He plans to meet with the federal judge Monday to discuss ending the suit.

Previously, the ACLU has won similar suits in Noblesville and Valparaiso, and another suit from Highland is currently being resolved in an identical way, Falk said. Meanwhile in Plainfield, plaintiff Crews is pleased with the quick resolution and that his suit helped bring attention to the issue in what he describes as probably the most important election in modern history. He's placed his Obama sign on the front lawn again.

"Signs are great dialogue starters and a way to get people to talk about these issues," he said. "We're not being intrusive or forcing our opinions on anyone else. We just want to start a dialogue with neighbors, and it's important to talk about these issues. Citizens should be able to participate in that way - it's our constitutional right."


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?