Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Political Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Virginia Beach council weighs tighter limits on political signs at city polling sites
Summary
City staff presented options to reduce sign size and limit where campaign signs may appear after complaints about safety and clutter; the city attorney warned content‑based limits risk violating Supreme Court precedent, and council asked staff to draft a resolution that would ban private signs on city property while carving out a finite, public‑facing area on election day.
City staff briefed the Virginia Beach City Council on approaches to reduce the visual clutter and safety risks posed by campaign and referendum signage, and council directed staff to draft a resolution for further consideration.
The Office of Performance and Accountability told council it had collected feedback from both major parties, the voter registrar and frontline staff after persistent complaints about large gatherings of signs at Building 14 and other polling locations. OPA described changes already implemented this year, including reduced maximum sizes and improved maps that bar tents and signs near ballot drop boxes. “We decreased the size that was allowed in front of Building 14… the largest signs were 26 by 16, and the largest sign that could be in the back was 4 feet by 4 feet,” an OPA staff member said during the briefing.
The city attorney cautioned that the council’s options are constrained by First Amendment law. “Any sign restriction or regulation that depends on the content of the sign… is a content‑based regulation of speech,” the city attorney said, explaining that Reed v. Gilbert (2015) makes content‑based distinctions presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny. She outlined lawful alternatives—time, place and manner restrictions such as limiting days or locations for signs, or establishing a content‑neutral numeric cap on total signs at a location—but warned that rules requiring officials to read a sign to determine whether it falls into a regulated category would be legally problematic.
Planning staff reviewed zoning and enforcement rules. Temporary signage is limited by district (for example, 16 square feet in some preservation/residential districts, 32 square feet in others) and signs on the public right of way are prohibited except at designated polling places; enforcement is complaint‑driven and staff remove signs in the right of way. Staff said property owners receive a notice of violation and 30 days to remove noncompliant signs on private property.
Council members from across the political spectrum described the proliferation of signs at some polling locations as a public‑safety and visual‑clutter problem and debated practical options. One council member urged a city‑property ban at the new registrar office and allowing a limited area only on election day. Others pressed questions about equitable enforcement where some precincts are on private property (churches, for example) and some are on city property.
After the discussion, the mayor asked staff to draft a resolution that would prohibit private signs on city‑controlled property while allowing a finite, clearly bounded area for election‑day material at public polling stations; council asked staff to return with a breakout of which precincts are on public versus private property and to prepare an education packet for candidates and parties. Staff said they would prepare a draft for council consideration and public input.
Next steps: staff will return with a draft resolution and a data breakdown of polling locations; the council indicated it may consider the item in a subsequent meeting cycle.
