Fayette County’s sign ordinance cannot be enforced until after this year’s election.

U.S. District Judge Jack Camp issued a preliminary injunction Oct. 13 in the case of Eric Maxwell vs. Fayette County. Maxwell owns 37 acres on Redwine Road and wanted to place signs on his property showing his support for various candidates in this year’s Peachtree City races.

“All I want to do is express my personal opinion,” Maxwell said.
In the case filed in U.S. District Court in Newnan, Maxwell sought temporary relief from the enforcement of the sign ordinance for the election season. Fayette County is still looking at revamping its ordinance after a recent ruling by Fayette County Superior Court Judge Paschal English. Maxwell went to federal court to seek the preliminary injunction.

“To me, it’s a free speech issue. I’m not trying to get billboards erected throughout the county,” he said.

Maxwell has been a key person in the county’s struggle with its sign ordinance. In 1998, the county adopted an ordinance that limited residents to one free-standing sign in their yards. The sign could not exceed six square feet in area.

In June 2004, Maxwell was cited for violating the ordinance because he had eight candidates’ signs in his yard. But after he was charged, then-State Court Solicitor Steve Harris said he wouldn’t prosecute the case because he believed the sign ordinance was unconstitutional.

Over the last eight months, the county’s ordinance has been the subject of many court decisions.

In March, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Fayette Superior Court Judge Paschal English “applied an inappropriate standard for determining constitutionality” when he denied a request from two Fayette residents seeking a temporary injunction from the county’s sign ordinance until the lawsuit could be settled in court.

In its ruling, the court noted that the Georgia constitution provides broader protection than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which requires a government to “draw its regulations to suppress no more speech than is necessary to achieve its goals.”

Curtis “Bubba” Coffey and Wayne Charles filed a suit last July, challenging the county’s position that its sign ordinance allows only one political sign to be erected on a residential parcel. Coffey contends that keeps him from showing his support for multiple candidates at the same time.

The Supreme Court told Judge English to reconsider the request for a temporary injunction “using the correct legal standards,” Justice Leah Sears wrote.

The court’s opinion noted that English correctly determined that the county “has a significant governmental interest in aesthetics and traffic safety,” but failed to take into account other tests such sign ordinances must meet.

In July, English ruled that some elements of the ordinance would have to be further evaluated.

One of the items that must be stricken from the ordinance is the sentence, “such signs may not be used to direct the public to a place or event at a location other than the location upon which the sign is posted.” English said the sentence was unconstitutional because it can apply to noncommercial speech.

The judge also said the county needs to look at several content-based exceptions or restrictions in the ordinance. Specifically, he said window signs cannot prohibit the name of the business or advertising copy.

Other issues English said the county needs to look at are content on banners, flashing signs, sidewalk signs and door signs.

In his closing comments, English wrote that all other aspects of the ordinance are constitutional and the original intent of the ordinance to “protect the aesthetics of the community and to protect traffic safety” would still be maintained.

In his analysis of the case, federal Judge Camp wrote that “... a resident is foreclosed from simultaneously posting one sign in his or her yard supporting a candidate for election and another supporting a local issue like a bond referendum. By limiting residents to one political yard sign, the sign ordinance forecloses expression which a number of courts have held to be an important and vital means of political speech.”

Fayette County Commission Chairman Greg Dunn said the county is still working on the rewrite of the ordinance, but would like to see one ruling from a court to make sure the county won’t have to go through this process again.

“We’re asking for a ruling from the 11th Circuit on it. We’ve had courts confirm that its constitutional and now we just need to resolve other elements,” he said.

login to post comments