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. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.