Political signs in Florida?

When I drove around our neighborhood last week, I noticed quite a few yards with political signs in them. As our CC&R only allows for sale signs, I decided to go ahead and send a letter out to all of those that had political signs in their yards. Before doing so, I double checked our CC&R and also Florida Statutes regarding the matter, and could not find anything that said you could.

But I got a call tonight from the Secretary stating that the board went through the same thing in 2004 with political signs but were told that there was some law that allowed it, although he couldn't quote the law.

I researched it again, and am still not able to find anything...I did find several articles stating that people in deed restricted communities could *not* put signs up, but nothing saying that they could.

As an example, one article reads:
"Cities and counties are creations of government. HOAs are really a creation of contract," said Robert Taylor, a partner with Taylor & Carls, an Orlando firm that represents homeowner associations. "If you sign a contract that says you won't have any signs, you cannot put up any sign."

Does anyone know if there is a law in Florida that says they can? And, if so, where can I find it?

Thanks in advance.

The same could be said for flags and flagpoles, but the state recently passed laws allowing them and overriding HOA's regarding their rules on them:

(2)(a) Any homeowner may display one portable, removable United States flag or official flag of the State of Florida in a respectful manner, and one portable, removable official flag, in a respectful manner, not larger than 41/2 feet by 6 feet, which represents the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, or a POW-MIA flag, regardless of any covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements of the association.

(b) Any homeowner may erect a freestanding flagpole no more than 20 feet high on any portion of the homeowner's real property, regardless of any covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements of the association, if the flagpole does not obstruct sightlines at intersections and is not erected within or upon an easement. The homeowner may further display in a respectful manner from that flagpole, regardless of any covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements of the association, one official United States flag, not larger than 41/2 feet by 6 feet, and may additionally display one official flag of the State of Florida or the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard, or a POW-MIA flag. Such additional flag must be equal in size to or smaller than the United States flag.

But, I haven't been able to find anything specific that allows political signs.

If you allow election signs, be prepared to allow any kind of sign: "Pigs for Sale", "Room for Rent", "Pro or Anti-Abortion", "I support the Confederate Flag", and on and on and on.

If you are interested, here is a summary of the Supreme Court's CITY OF LADUE,v. MARGARET P. GILLEO 92-1856. This case deals with a municipality, not a homeowners association. It remains to be seen if the Court would extend this reasoning to homeowners associations, particularly given the Twin Rivers decision.

Date Decided: June 13, 1994

Issue: Freedom of Speech -- Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit homeowners from displaying virtually all signs on their property.

Vote: No, 9-0

Facts: An ordinance in Ladue, Missouri, prohibited homeowners from displaying all signs on their property except residence identification signs, "for sale" signs, and signs warning of safety hazards. A homeowner displayed a letter-sized sign stating "For Peace in the Gulf" and challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance. The district and appellate courts held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment.

Legal Principles at Issue: While governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs, they may not allow some signs and ban others based upon their content. Nor may governments ban all signs and foreclose an important form of communication. Metromedia v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981).

Legal Basis for Decision: The Court agreed, holding that although the government may regulate the physical characteristics of signs, the First Amendment prohibits content-based regulation. Ladue's ordinance was simply too broad and it effectively eliminated one avenue of speech.

George, this is the quote I was talking about. It didn't show up in my post above.

"Clearly, the association does not want to get into the area of determining that some political expression is permissible while others are not."

I don't want to belabor the point, but the issue here is whether covenants can properly allow for for sale signs and prohibit all other signs. In 1994 the Court say municipalities could not do so.

All it would take is a determined homeowner and the ACLU to invalidate a lot of covenants. A better approach, it seems to me, are reasonable regulations as to the time, manner, and place of political signs in a covenant neighborhood, rather than seeking to enforce a covenant prohibition that may lead to an expensive court case or to state legislation that would further limit the powers of associations.

George, again, I have a strong sense (gut feeling) that you are simply pushing an agenda.

Political signs can be restricted by HOAs' governing documents in many states and communities.

Several challenges have come up in our area over the years, and all of the challenges of which I am aware were dropped before going to court with the various residents removing the signs.

However, because the MEDIA can make a huge deal out of this sort of thing and fan the flames of continued anti-HOA rhetoric, many HOAs (ours included) are amending their documents to allow political signs within certain time frames before and after an election.

The key word there being Government. HOA's are different.

That's correct Bryan. The government isn't restricting free speech or signage, the HOA is restricting this by contract; a contract that the person buying into the neighborhood agreed to.

Another article that might be of interest here is this one on personal & public expression from the First Amendment Center. The writer notes the Twin Rivers case, but he also discusses a Pennsylvania case that found that HOAs restrictions on signs are valid because of the private nature of HOAs and the contractual agreements of CC&Rs. So while municipalities are barred from enforcing sign restrictions, HOAs are still able to enforce theirs.

As there are many people from many states that use this forum, I would clarify that I am generally speaking that if your covenants state no signs except "For Sale" signs, then if you allow election signs, you must allow any and all signs. If you permit some signs and not others, that is selective enforcement. I am not familiar with Texas law, as I do not live there. Using Texas law generally is an abuse of logic.

Bryan,
You are assumming correctly, no signs allowed in the cc&rs means no signs allowed. Pretty easy to follow if you ask me.

Note that I do advocate writing the rules in the manner in which you intend to enforce them. So, if you want to allow say three signs provided by candidates, then you should write your rules to accommodate such.

Personally in a development of single family homes I don't see why election signs should be prohibited. I think that this is where Texas got it right. There isn't a blanket allowance for "political" signs. There is an allowance for signs dealing with a specific ballot item. This could be for a candidate, or in support (or against) one of the constitutional amendments that Texas sees. (Our constitution was not that well written and is regularly amended. Sometimes for very local issues.)