Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Political Signs Rights Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two companion bills would clarify where political signs may go; sponsor cites Claremont dispute with attorney general
Summary
House Bill 336 would clarify placement of political advertisements on public rights of way; HB 423 focuses on requiring abutter consent when public property abuts private land. Sponsors said confusion after a Claremont incident and an Attorney General letter prompted the bills; New Hampshire Municipal Association supported HB 336.
Two companion bills on the placement of political signage before the committee would try to resolve long-running confusion about whether and where campaign signs may be placed on public property and rights of way.
Representative Judy Aaron introduced HB 336, saying a dispute in Claremont last year prompted her bill. Aaron described a post-election incident in which signs placed on the town green were removed; the Attorney General’s Office wrote the city saying political signs were forbidden on public property and that they should be removed. The city manager’s attorney replied with a different interpretation of RSA 664:17 and the city temporarily granted permission for signs to be placed again while the parties exchanged letters.
“This was a very confusing and crazy time,” Aaron told the committee. She said her bill would permit local municipalities to grant permission for signage on public land and rights of way so municipalities can clarify where signs are allowed. Sarah Burke Cohen of the New Hampshire Municipal Association told the committee NHMA supports HB 336 and said the bill’s language aligns with rights-of-way and property ownership law.
Representative Ken Wyler appeared to introduce HB 423, which would give adjoining property owners (abutters) clearer rights to control political advertising placed on public property abutting their land. Wyler described repeatedly removing signs from the right-of-way adjacent to his home over multiple campaigns; he said a cease-and-desist issued by the Attorney General’s Office in one episode created further confusion and that he seeks statutory clarity about the abutter’s remedy.
Witnesses and committee members questioned how overlapping ownership of rights of way, municipal control and state-owned rights of way should interact. Deputy Secretary of State Erin Hennessey and others noted distinctions between fee ownership of land and rights of way and the practical difficulty for clerks and officials in applying complicated ownership rules. No committee vote was taken during the hearing.
