Election Signs Protected From Yardley Borough Regulation

YARDLEY, PA —A resident's plea for borough officials that 2022 Election signs violated the borough's zoning ordinance came back with a quick answer: the signs stay.

Resident Peter Clay had voiced his displeasure at a Borough Council meeting earlier this month that the size of political signs along Main Street made Yardley look like "the Newtown Bypass."

When Clay returned to ask for an update at last week's meeting, Council President Caroline Thompson had a fast response.

"I looked into the matter. It's a complete court decision," Thompson said. "The policing of political signs is unconstitutional."

Thompson apologized to Clay, stating the borough hadn't updated its zoning ordinances.

She cited the court case Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert. In that 2015 case, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified when municipalities can impose content-based restrictions on signage and the "constitutional scrutiny" that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech.

In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas.

Clay had told Council that political signs along Main Street violated borough zoning ordinances, which stated signs should be no more than 4 square feet.

"I share your feelings about large signs," Thompson said. "They aren't good. We just don't have a good legal setting. The case is very clear."

"So it's a First Amendment thing?" Clay responded.

In the upcoming Nov. 8 general election, the borough has a ballot question asking residents to reduce the size of the council from seven members to five.