Judge Grants Motion To Remove Political Signs In Central Bucks

DOYLESTOWN, PA— Bucks County Judge Jeffrey Trauger on Wednesday issued an order granting the Bucks County Democratic Committee's motion for an injunction to remove certain signs put up on public property in the Central Bucks School District.

The Democrats had sought the removal of the signs, which started appearing in the last few weeks and which attack the Democratic candidates for school board with defamatory statements, but do not contain a disclaimer stating who or what paid for them.

That requirement under state law is intended to ensure that campaigns are abiding by campaign finance rules, argued the Democrats, and to ensure that if defamatory statements are made, the victims of those statements will know who or what made them.

“This is a clear victory for the rule of law,” said State Senator Steve Santarsiero, Chair of the
BCDC. “We sought this injunction to remove the signs in question, because they clearly violate
Pennsylvania law. Whoever made them did not have the courage to identify themselves with an
appropriate disclaimer, as the law requires. They hoped that they could defame our candidates
without any consequence. While we may never know who they are, we at least now have a
remedy to address their violation of state law. If they ever do come forward to claim
responsibility for the signs, we will move swiftly to sue them for defamation,” Santarsiero added.

During oral argument on the motion on November 1, the court raised questions about the constitutionality of removing the signs on private property.

With only days left before the Election Day on November 7, the BCDC decided to limit the relief that it was seeking to the removal of the signs on public property, without prejudice to its ability to make the argument in the future that even signs on private property violated the law and should be removed.

“Both the statute and our motion were content-neutral,” explained BCDC solicitor, Dawn Burke. “That is to say, neither has anything to do with what the signs say – as objectionable as they are – but rather with the fact that by not including a proper disclaimer, they violated the law. The court’s decision was based on that narrow issue,” she added.