ALDERMAN USE OFFICE TO FURTHER SELF INTERESTS

Jeremy L

Elected officials are elected with a purpose in mind, to represent the citizens. So what about when those elected officials use their position to create ordinances that would prohibit the citizens who would dare run against them and those citizens who would support those who are running against incumbents.

According the the Granite City Council Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2009 an ordinance was passed.

MOTION By Kambarian, second by Partney to only allow Municipal election Signs to only be able to be displayed for 30 days prior to municipal elections.

Motion carried.

Many Cities have attempted to pass ordinances restricting the time limits before an election that signs can be displayed and those ordinances have been struck down as unconstitutional.

In Gladstone, Mo such an ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. The court ruled that city residents can be allowed to display political signs as long as they chose.

Whitton v. City of Gladstone, 54 F.3d 1400 (8th Cir. 1995)

We can't have city officials thinking they can use their office for their political gain and we can't have them thinking they can just ignore our constitutional rights. That is not what they are paid for. The fact that they are not limiting other types of signs or political signs, but specifically municipal election signs, can come to show that their intent is not to reduce clutter, but to infringe upon our right to free speech and as an attempt to further prohibit others who are running for their position. It can be looked upon as an attempt to further their own self interests which is not the interest of the people. They are already in office and don't need to worry about getting their name out there.

In Bell v. Baltimore County Judge Catherine Blake ruled that political signs are a form of protected free speech. As such, no government can infringe upon it. History has shown if citizens let their governments infringe even on the simple basic rights, they will not want to stop there.

This is not the first unconstitutional ordinance they have passed and had struck down as unconstitutional. Previously known the ordinance that restricted the sign size of protesters at certain parades. Such as an ordinance that was struck down as unconstitutional prohibiting the distribution of handbills. Which leads to make one wonder, why is such a person who continues to draft these ordinances still being paid by the taxpayers.