Settlement allows campaign signs on private property near Alaska state roads

Alaska residents can voluntarily display small, temporary political campaign signs on private property along state roadways, contrary to past interpretations of state and federal law, a new legal settlement says.

Political campaign signs are still illegal in highway rights-of-way, though campaigns and supporters regularly flout that rule during election season. The state Department of Transportation can clear those signs without any notice to sign owners.

But those removals must be done in an “equal, content-neutral manner,” according to the Tuesday order from Anchorage Superior Court Judge Herman Walker -- an apparent reference to complaints that political signs were being unconstitutionally targeted.

Those complaints were central to the lawsuit filed in August by an independent expenditure group supporting now-governor-elect Mike Dunleavy; a private resident, Eric Siebels, who said he was worried about his right to display a sign on his property; and the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska.

The lawsuit specifically targeted a state law that barred outdoor advertising on private property 660 feet from the edge of state rights-of-way. The law also said signs couldn’t be installed or positioned on private property so the message could be read from state roadways.

Walker’s order essentially threw out those provisions, as part of a settlement announced Wednesday. It resembles a September order saying temporary signs no larger than 32 square feet are allowed on private property outside highway rights-of-way.

In a statement, the ACLU of Alaska cheered the settlement as a victory for free speech.

“Everything outside of the right-of-way has been knocked down if it’s political speech,” said Casey Reynolds, a spokesman for ACLU of Alaska.

The state of Alaska also said it was happy with the settlement, which it has said clarifies state law. Michael Schechter, a state attorney, said in an email that it allows DOT to enforce the state’s longstanding prohibition on billboards, while still allowing small political campaign signs on private property.

As part of the settlement, the state must also pay $15,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs, according to Walker’s order.

State officials and attorneys said the intent of the private property section of the sign law was to comply with a 1998 voter initiative that banned billboard advertising along Alaska roads. Schechter has said there was no evidence DOT had ever physically removed signs from private property.

In a previous order, however, Walker cited “threatening letters” that some private property owners had received about the placement of signs.

One DOT official acknowledged in an August interview the state did enforce the provision about signs on private property, though she said it was “very uncomfortable.” The official, Heather Fair, said the state generally sent a letter to property owners asking for signs to be removed voluntarily, and most did.

Though the plaintiffs had further legal questions about rights-of-way, Reynolds said the group felt it had won on most of the issues, avoiding the need for a trial. He also noted that the urgency had passed, with election season over.

He said the plaintiffs agreed the state DOT needs authority within the public rights-of-way when it comes to public safety issues.