Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Political Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council amends sign rules after ACLU warning, narrows town enforcement to content‑neutral limits
Summary
After an ACLU review and recent case law, the council removed length-of-display and content restrictions on political signs and clarified placement rules; staff will continue enforcing safety‑based limits.
The South Kingstown Town Council approved amendments to the town’s zoning ordinance (Article 8, Section 802) during a public hearing on Feb. 10 to remove provisions that limited how long political signs could be displayed and to focus regulation on content‑neutral, public‑safety matters.
Town solicitor Mike Ursillo briefed the council and said recent First Amendment case law — and a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — made the town’s prior duration and content restrictions legally risky. “We are bound as a municipality to regulate things which are content neutral,” Ursillo said, explaining the town may lawfully regulate sign location, safety, and obstruction but not the content or arbitrary time limits imposed on political expression.
Under the adopted change, the ordinance retains rules that prohibit signs on traffic control devices, utility poles and “public” right of way locations where they would obstruct sight lines or traffic, but it strips language that had imposed special timing windows tied to elections. The council and staff discussed practical enforcement questions, including how to treat signs planted near stone walls on town rights of way and the town’s current practice of removing and storing illegally‑placed signs for retrieval. Building‑official discretion and case‑by‑case determinations will guide enforcement.
Council members and staff said the change was defensive as much as corrective: if the town continued to enforce content‑based or duration limits, it could face a costly First Amendment lawsuit and be liable for attorney fees. Ursillo mentioned a recent Rhode Island decision in which a municipality paid damages for overly restrictive sign rules. Council members also credited local residents who had raised the issue with the ACLU and asked staff to continue active, safety‑focused enforcement.
The council approved the amendment by voice vote. Staff said they will follow current practice for removed signs (they are stored and owners may retrieve them) and that the building official will continue to evaluate placement questions, such as whether a sign adjacent to a stone wall is within the public right of way and subject to removal.
