Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Political Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chincoteague council sends political-sign ordinance back for clearer definitions after public concern
Summary
At a Oct. 17 work session the Chincoteague Town Council voted to send a proposed political-sign ordinance back to the ordinance/planning commission after residents urged clearer definitions distinguishing campaign signage from political-issue displays and flagged potential First Amendment and enforcement issues.
The Town of Chincoteague council voted Oct. 17 to return a proposed political-sign ordinance to the ordinance/planning commission for further drafting after residents and council members said the current language lacks a clear definition of "political sign." Mayor John Arthur Leonard presided over the work session.
Resident Patricia Farley, 3243 Leases Lane, told the council the draft ordinance “has no definition in the ordinance anywhere for political sign” and urged it be rewritten to distinguish candidacy or campaign signs from broader political-issue displays. Farley suggested criteria such as a date, a candidate’s name or an office on the sign to qualify it as a campaign sign.
A written comment read into the record by town staff echoed those concerns and warned the change could be seen as a “slippery slope” or even a voter-suppression tactic if the town does not narrowly define covered items. The letter asked who proposed the change, who would enforce it, whether flags and banners would be covered and how the town would measure size or sight-distance.
Town staff clarified the ordinance’s timing provisions: signs would be permitted starting 30 days before the first day a legal vote can be cast and must be removed no later than 14 days after the election. Staff said the 30-day anchor was written to accommodate changes in the statewide voting calendar.
Council members said they generally support having a 30-day pre-election window and a 14-day post-election removal requirement, but several said the ordinance needs stronger, more specific definitions (for example, how to treat flags, banners, signs with slogans versus candidate names) to avoid chilling lawful First Amendment expression or creating enforcement problems. Council member Denise said, “I do have to agree with the public here on some of this about a definition.”
After discussion the council moved and approved sending the draft back to the ordinance/planning commission for redrafting and clearer language. The vote was by voice; the transcript records ayes but does not list individual roll-call votes.
Next steps: the ordinance will return to the commission for revision; the council did not set a deadline at the session.
