THE PLAIN DEALER
Cleveland, Thursday, September 7, 2001

High court bats down Painesville sign rules

Political speech was restricted

PAINESVILLE - It's open season - year round - for political signs in Painesville, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday. The court's seven justices agreed unanimously that Painesville could not restrict when political signs can be posted. A 1993 Painesville ordinance allowing political signs only 17 days before an election violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The decision by the state's highest court erases similar local restrictions across the state, said Patrick Perotti, a lawyer with Dworken & Bernstein, a law firm that handles free speech cases. "After today's ruling, whether we're in Sandusky, Cincinnati or Painesville, no municipality can restrict speech like that," he said. In 1997, the Painesville law firm put a sign in front of its offices in 1997 opposing a ballot referendum that would have limited the rights of injured workers. When a city worker told the firm to take down te sign, Perotti said the firm refused.

"This is the United States, and we don't have to take our sign down," he said. "We did it not just for the law firm, but for the rights of other citizens to speak."

Council President Abby DelaMotte said many cities had similar ordinances.

"Our concern was not to restrict free speech, but to keep things looking nice," she said. She called signs in disrepair or strewn around yards "an eyesore."

But Perotti said the law firm's sign was new and in good condition and noted that the ordinance didn't apply to garage-sale signs or other kinds of signs.

"This had to do with the political message of the sign," he said. The city issued Dworken & Bernstein a citation, and the law firm challenged the violation in Lake County Common Pleas Court. Painesville won that round, but the firm appealed. Last year, the firm won in the 11th District Ohio Court of Appeals. Painesville then appealed that decision.

City Law Director Joseph Curley said he would review yesterday's ruling with the city administration and City Council. One option would be to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But the Ohio Supreme Court suggested another alternative in its decision. If aesthetics were the impetus for the ordinance, the city could rewrite it saying so. A regulation restricting signs made of materials likely to cause litter or other aesthetic problems could be constitutional, the justices said.

"This decision is telling us to revisit the ordinance to see if it can be rewritten to accomplish everyone's end result," said DelaMotte.