Supreme Court ruling might affect election signs

Calls to alter Yorba Linda's existing regulations regarding the placement of temporary signs in public rights-of-way are one constant after nearly every city election, especially for signs posted along Yorba Linda Boulevard, Imperial Highway and other heavily traveled thoroughfares.

Some residents view the biennial glut of signage advocating candidates and causes as welcome evidence of a vibrant local democracy, while others see only waste, clutter and examples of an increasingly negative tone taken by candidates and groups to demean opponents.

Usually, requests for stricter regulations are ignored or just forgotten after an election, and if reports outlining potential changes come before the City Council, they're “received and filed.”

But now, a decision expected by June in a case before the United States Supreme Court could establish standards for Yorba Linda and other cities to regulate temporary signage, according to a report presented council members from the City Attorney's office.

The report came in response to a council request to place the issue of regulating temporary signs located on public rights-of-way on the Feb. 3 council agenda. City Attorney Todd Litfin recommended deferring action due to the upcoming court decision.

A ruling in the case, Reed v. Gilbert, “may substantially change the laws pertaining to temporary signs,” the report noted. The case challenges portions of an Arizona city's differing rules for categories of signs, such as political and church and real estate-related directional signs.

The city's ordinance was upheld by a Court of Appeals ruling on a 2-1 vote that the regulations were content-neutral and based on objective factors, not on the wording on the signs. The Supreme Court granted review of the appeal court ruling, with argument heard Jan. 12.

The city attorney's report noted: “Although 'content-neutrality' seems like a simple concept, applying it in particular cases has produced a confusing array of definitions from courts, particularly in the context of sign regulation.”

And since the Supreme Court's decision in the Reed case “has the potential to change the state of the law in a dramatic way,” waiting for the ruling “prior to assessing existing regulations is recommended.”

This city's current rules for signs in public rights-of-way apply to all types of signs and are in place for public safety reasons, according to guidelines issued to candidates who seek council positions.

The regulations, some of which are routinely ignored, especially within the Main Street business district, apply to owner identification, size, placement and quick post-election removal.

The most recent quest to change the city's rules came in a six-page proposed ordinance presented to the council in July 2013. It was received and filed on a 3-1 vote, with Craig Young dissenting. He said the signs were a “major issue” that needed to be addressed.