Can your homeowners\u2019 association or subdivision board prevent you from planting a political sign in your front yard? That\u2019s a question that comes up just about every time there\u2019s an election, and 2012 is no exception.<\/p>\n

This week, in exurban Wentzville, Missouri, homeowner Don Prinster had to settle for taping his favorite candidate\u2019s sign in his front window, because his subdivision prohibits political yard signs<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Is that okay? It\u2019s a tricky question: Is political expression an over-arching right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, or are yard signs nuisances and clutter that can be regulated by local subdivision associations as a way of keeping up the neighborhood?<\/p>\n

At least one local legislator\u2014state representative Kurt Bahr, a Republican from nearby O\u2019Fallon, Missouri\u2014thinks freedom of speech trumps everything. And he\u2019s proposing a bill that would prevent homeowners\u2019 associations from enforcing or adopting bans on political signs.<\/p>\n

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, similar laws are already in effect in 10 other states. [Of course, it\u2019s hard to know whether laws banning bans are motivated by a deep belief in the Constitution and its guarantee of freedom of expression or by politicians\u2019 needs to get their yard signs out there. But that\u2019s commentary, and I\u2019ll get to more of that later.]<\/p>\n

Historical note: Missouri has had a headline-grabbing role in this issue. In 1990, Margaret Gilleo, a homeowner in upscale Ladue, Missouri placed a sign in her front yard to protest the Persian Gulf War. Her action violated Ladue\u2019s ban on all residential political signs. She took her case to court, and in 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ban. But that 1994 ruling pertained only to a city law, not to rules for a privately run subdivision. And that issue remains unsettled, as Don Prinster recently learned.<\/p>\n

In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch front-page story<\/a> about this issue, one member of Prinster\u2019s subdivision board voiced his opposition to a law banning bans on yard signs, saying he doesn\u2019t like it \u201cwhen big government comes in.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s an intriguing statement on several levels. [Here\u2019s the commentary portion of our program.] \u00a0First, he doesn\u2019t like \u201cbig government.\u201d In this case, that means the state of Missouri. In the political parlance of 2012, especially that of Republican candidates, \u201cbig government\u201d usually refers to the Federal government. Most of the Republican candidates are hell-bent on focusing power in the states, so that \u201cbig government\u201d label would seem to fall outside of current Republican dogma. But, okay: that subdivision guy\u2014and I have no factual information as to what his political leanings are\u2014just doesn\u2019t like people bossing him around, and it doesn’t matter where they get their authority.\u00a0 I get it.<\/p>\n

But what makes his statement even more illogical is that he thinks that subdivision \u201cgovernment\u201d is just fine. As a board member, he\u2019s part of something you might call a private, \u201cmicro-government.\u201d As a subdivision trustee, he thinks it\u2019s his job to enforce the rules set forth in the subdivision documents\u2014rules initially formulated by a private developer, and possibly amended by members of the homeowners’ association\u2014whether or not they conform to the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n

The logic is hard to follow. It reminds me of the argument against healthcare reform: People who want \u201cObamacare\u201d repealed are against big government \u201cinterfering\u201d in a person’s healthcare decisions. [The Affordable Care Act doesn\u2019t do that, for the record.] But they don\u2019t realize that, in America\u2019s largely unregulated, privatized healthcare system, healthcare is \u201cgoverned\u201d by insurance companies who do, in fact, \u201cinterfere\u201d with healthcare by denying coverage, steering patients to in-network doctors and hospitals, dropping members when they become sick, and excluding people with pre-existing conditions. \u00a0It\u2019s the difference between the federal government protecting your rights, versus a private, for-profit organization deciding what rights you have.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s surprising, too, that someone who doesn\u2019t like government would say, \u201cWhat you do in your yard doesn\u2019t just<\/em> affect you<\/em>,\u201d as the subdivision trustee is quoted as saying in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch<\/em>. Based on his comment about big-government, I would have expected him to be an individual-liberty and property-rights defender. Instead, he\u2019s demonstrating a sense of community and respect for the common good. \u00a0He may be inconsistent, but to me, that\u2019s a hopeful sign. [Pun intended.]<\/p>\n

Hey, no one ever said that these issues were simple.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Can your homeowners\u2019 association or subdivision board prevent you from planting a political sign in your front yard? That\u2019s a question that comes up<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":14944,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[255,128,113,172,119,573],"tags":[1467,2484],"yoast_head":"\n