Are election signs key to free speech?

For some, election signs are a blight on a community’s landscape. Others, though, see them as a key part of democracy, and an element of one’s freedom of expression.

You can count a local member of Parliament in that latter group.

First though, before you read further, click here to read the letter from the MP and tell us whether you think election signs should be restricted or not. (We’re asking you to do it first because we hope to minimize the instinctive feelings readers have about political parties they support—or don’t support.)

The context

As two Fraser Valley municipalities consider restricting the placement of elections signs, a local member of Parliament has warned that doing so could jeopardize democracy.

In November, a Langley Township councillor called on his municipality to consider banning all election signs on public property. (They would still be allowed on private property.)

The following month, Mission Coun. Ken Herar suggested his city also consider election sign restrictions. Herar noted that the remnants of vandalized signs could still be seen near Mission roads. Herar, though, called the township proposal “an extreme reaction and less democratic approach” that would favour incumbents and suggested Mission create a milder version, albeit one that would still impose some restrictions.

That possibility was enough to raise the alarm bells for Mission’s local MP, Brad Vis.

In a letter sent to Mission council Vis, the Conservative MP for Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon, acknowledged that some “limits” are needed to ensure the safety and views of drivers are not compromised. But he wrote that “other limits on campaign advertising risk undue negative impacts on our democratic process.”

Vis described election signs as a key component of campaign advertising that allows candidates to make their voices heard. The placement of signs, he wrote, could directly end up influencing how residents vote. And he suggested any restrictions amount to imposing limits on freedom of speech.

“It is a slippery slope to inhibit freedom of expression, especially during campaigns when debate and discussion of our values is at the forefront,” Vis wrote.

Several Fraser Valley communities have already moved to ban election signs on public property. Abbotsford did so last year, after having previously restricted election signs to 15 permitted locations (and only one sign at each of those sites). Staff said it was too difficult to enforce those rules. Staff reported that in the previous election, more than two-thirds of candidate had broken its sign bylaw.

Langley City also banned signs from public property last year.

Chilliwack, meanwhile, permits election signs on public property, though they ban them from balconies.

Both Mission and Langley revisited their election sign plans last week.

Langley Township’s council was unsatisfied with staff’s first suggested bylaw. Coun. Michael Pratt suggested that, as a renter, the proposed bylaw coupled with strata rules, would effectively make it impossible for him to place his own signs on property near his home.

Council suggested residents be given more opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal.

Mission’s staff is still considering the motion, and Mayor Paul Horn said Vis’s letter will be among the pieces of feedback they considered.

Horn also suggested that Mission’s approach is likely to reflect the concerns raised by Vis

“I don’t think what he’s asking for is contrary to what we’re working with.”