Editing Lawn sign

{{short description|Small advertising signs on a property facing a public area}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2020}}
[[File:Political Lawn Signs in Sioux City, Iowa - 2018 Midterm Election (44792130662).jpg|thumb|Political lawn signs in [[Sioux City, Iowa]] ahead of the [[2018 United States elections]]]]

'''Lawn signs''' (also known as '''yard signs''',<ref>{{cite book |last1=Shaw |first1=Catherine M. |title=The campaign manager: running and winning local elections |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group |location=New York |isbn=9780813350790 |edition=6}}</ref> '''bandit signs'''<ref>{{cite web |title=Bandit Signs FAQ |url=https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Code_Compliance/Bandit_Signs_FAQ_and_Campaign.pdf |website=City of Austin |publisher=City of Austin, Texas |access-date=14 February 2025}}</ref> and '''[[placard]]s''',<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/placard|title=Placard Definition & Meaning|website=[[Merriam-Webster]]|access-date=14 August 2023}}</ref> among other names) are small signs that can be placed on a street-facing [[lawn]] or elsewhere on a property to express the support for an [[election]] candidate, or political position,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/lawn-sign|title=Lawn sign - Definition|website=[[Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary]]|access-date=14 August 2023}}</ref> by the property owner (or sometimes to promote a business). They are popular in [[political campaign]]s in the United States and Canada.

==Placement==
{{Political campaigning}}
Lawn signs are often also placed near [[polling place]]s on election day, although in most jurisdictions, there are legal restrictions on campaigning within a certain distance from a voting facility.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120721020418/http://www.campaigntrailyardsigns.com/about-campaign-signs/election-sign-rules/ Election Sign Rules]</ref> In most states, there are also restrictions on where these signs can be placed. There are some residential areas that have ordinances prohibiting any posting of yard signs.

The signs are typically placed close to the road for greater visibility.<ref>{{cite book|last=Low|first=Steve|title=The Big Lawn Care Marketing Book|year=2008|publisher=Riggs Publications|isbn=978-1440402500|pages=448}}</ref> In most highways a sign may not be erected so that the part of the sign face nearest a highway is within five feet of the highway's right of way line.

Signs come in various shapes and sizes, but are most often rectangular and between 12 and 40&nbsp;inches on each side. They are usually produced in packages that include lawn sign wires since most of these lawn signs need to be placed on a grass or dirt surface.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.squaresigns.com/blog/benefits-of-acrylic-pvc-and-yard-signs|title=What Are The Advantages Of Yard Signs?|date=17 December 2018 |website=Square Signs|author-first=Jessica|author-last=Goldsworthy|access-date=14 August 2023}}</ref>

==Types==
===H-frame===
A common type of yard sign frame is the "H-frame". The wire frames usually have at least two tines that can be inserted into the flutes of corrugated plastic signs. The tines on the other end of the frame can be inserted into the ground. A single or double crossbar between the two tines adds strength and makes the entire frame one single unit. It also prevents the sign face from sliding down the tines.

===I-frame===
The I-frame is essentially an H-frame without a crossbar linking the two legs. Each leg may have an abutment that acts as a stop to prevent the sign from sliding down.

==Political importance==
{{Multiple image
| direction         = vertical
| image1            = Vote Leave - geograph.org.uk - 5002468.jpg
| image2            = Mayor Pete at Roosevelt High School (48891217236).jpg
| footer            = Top: [[Vote Leave]] signs during 2016 UK referendum on EU membership. Bottom: Signs supporting [[Pete Buttigieg]] for the [[2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries]]
}}

Political scientist Mel Kahn states that lawn signs help build name recognition for candidates. Supposedly, each sign represents 6–10 votes for the candidate.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.wichita.edu/thisis/wsunews/news/?nid=423|title=WSU PODCAST: Why political yard signs matter|date=19 November 2008|work=Wichita State News|access-date=13 August 2010}}</ref> However, veteran political organizers hate the task of handing out yard signs, because they believe that time spent on procuring and distributing yard signs could be better used on other voter registration and [[get out the vote]] operations.  One randomized field trial found yard signs simply reminding people to vote were able to significantly increase overall voter turnout.<ref>{{cite news|website=[[NPR|National Public Radio]]|url=https://www.npr.org/2012/03/10/148351027/how-powerful-is-a-political-yard-sign|title=How Powerful Is A Political Yard Sign?|date=12 March 2012|access-date=14 August 2023}}</ref> A 2016 study found that lawn signs raise vote shares by slightly more than 1 percentage point and are "on par with other low-tech campaign tactics such as direct mail that generate ... effects that tend to be small in magnitude".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/election-lawn-sign-campaign-votes/|title=Do election lawn signs generate votes? New research|date=25 March 2016|author-first=Lauren|author-last=Leatherby|website=[[The Journalist's Resource]]|language=en-US|access-date=14 August 2023}}</ref>

In addition, it gives the requester a [[placebo effect]] of doing something substantive, while not actually volunteering to help their candidate.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/breaking-obama-campaign-organizers.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080922195416/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/breaking-obama-campaign-organizers.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=22 September 2008|title=BREAKING: Obama Campaign Organizers Trying To Win Election Instead of Get You Yard Signs|last=Quinn|first=Sean|date=21 September 2008|work=[[FiveThirtyEight.com]]|access-date=13 August 2010}}</ref> Critics charge that "lawn signs don't vote" and dismiss their importance.<ref>{{cite news|last=Wallace|first=Lane|title=The Popularity and Irrelevance of Our Lawn Sign Wars|newspaper=[[The Atlantic]]|date=3 November 2012|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/the-popularity-and-irrelevance-of-our-lawn-sign-wars/264488/|access-date=28 September 2020}}</ref> Theft of lawn signs is treated like any other instance of [[petty theft]], however, signs on the rights of way in many states are considered litter and can be picked up by anyone as a public service. On several occasions, citizens who removed lawn signs on the pretext of cleaning up the clutter and eliminating driver distraction were arrested, sparking a public controversy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://macon.com/2012/04/29/2008101/illegal-signs-along-bibb-county.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503200259/http://www.macon.com/2012/04/29/2008101/illegal-signs-along-bibb-county.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=3 May 2012|title=Illegal signs along Bibb County roadsides land woman in controversy|website=[[The Telegraph (Macon, Georgia)]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.macon.com/2012/07/07/2087731/warner-robins-resident-arrested.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120711055242/http://www.macon.com/2012/07/07/2087731/warner-robins-resident-arrested.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=11 July 2012|title=Warner Robins resident arrested for trashing signs in right of way|website=[[The Telegraph (Macon, Georgia)]]}}</ref>

In 2010, the ''Wall Street Journal'' reported on a then-new type of yard sign designed for improved effectiveness by being cut into shapes or people to deliver a political message. The article suggested that such signs could expose 25,000 drivers per day to messages at a low cost.<ref>{{cite web |title=In Campaigns, Entrepreneurs Get Busy|website=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221208210624/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703467004575464161144773800|archive-date=2022-12-08|url-status=live|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703467004575464161144773800|access-date=14 August 2023|author-first=Sarah|author-last=E. Needleman|date=2 September 2010}}</ref>

==Freedom of speech issues in the United States==
[[File:Bernie Sanders sign in Portland, Oregon.jpg|thumb|Lawn sign supporting [[Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016|Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign]], left out for over a year after the election]]
===Governments===
In the last forty years, there have been two landmark cases from the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] on the topic of sign ordinances. In [[City of Ladue v. Gilleo|''City of Ladue v. Gilleo'' (1994)]], a resident of [[Ladue, Missouri]], sued the city after being told by city officials she had to remove a sign from her upstairs window protesting the [[Gulf War]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|last=Greenhouse|first=Linda|date=1994-02-24|title=Justices, a Bit Amused, Ponder a Ban on Signs|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/24/us/justices-a-bit-amused-ponder-a-ban-on-signs.html|access-date=2021-04-21|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The city banned most signs within city limits but allowed  the placement of for-sale signs on the lawn. The Court struck down the ordinance and held that municipal ordinances aimed to reduce visual clutter through the regulation of yard signs were inviolate of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] if the ordinance restricted free speech and could not pass [[strict scrutiny]].<ref name=":0" /> Passing strict scrutiny, which requires that the law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, is an incredibly difficult standard to meet. Under the standard, ordinances are presumed to be unconstitutional.<ref>Adam Winkler, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts, 59 Vanderbilt Law Review 793 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol59/iss3/3</ref>

The second landmark decision by the Supreme Court was [[Reed v. Town of Gilbert|''Reed v. Town of Gilbert'' (2015)]]. In ''Reed'', the Court reviewed the constitutionality of a sign ordinance in [[Gilbert, Arizona]], which regulated the manner signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance banned the display of outdoor signs without a permit. However, the ordinance included over twenty categorical exemptions. For instance, "ideological" signs could be placed in the zoning district for an indeterminate amount of time and "political" signs were allowed in the district for up to 60 days before a [[Partisan primary|primary election]] and up to 15 days following a [[general election]].<ref>''Reed'', slip op. at 2 (citing Gilbert, Ariz., Land Development Code, ch. 1, §4.402(I)).</ref> However, “temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event", which directed "pedestrians, motorists, and other passersby" to events hosted by non-profit organizations, could only be displayed in the district twelve hours before the start of the event and had to be taken down an hour after the event.<ref name=":1">''Reed'', slip op. at 3 (citing Gilbert, Ariz., Land Development Code, ch. 1, §4.402(P)) (internal quotations omitted).</ref> The size of the signs were also regulated depending on the category.<ref name=":1" /> The Court held that the signs were a content based regulation because it distinguished signs based on their topic. Under First Amendment jurisprudence, content based regulations receive strict scrutiny. The ordinance was struck down.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hudson|first=David|title=Reed v. Town of Gilbert|url=https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1472/reed-v-town-of-gilbert|access-date=2021-04-21|website=THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA|language=en}}</ref>

Despite these rulings, municipalities and state governments continue to pass unconstitutional sign ordinances which are periodically struck down by courts.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wimer|first=Andrew|date=30 July 2019|title=All Over The Land Of The Free, Sign Laws Restrict Basic Speech Rights|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2019/07/30/all-over-the-land-of-the-free-sign-laws-restrict-basic-speech-rights/|access-date=16 August 2023|website=[[Forbes]]|language=en}}</ref>
===Residential associations===
The yard sign protections laid out in ''Ladue'' and in ''Reed'' do not apply to many Americans because they live in a house or condominium with a restrictive covenant governed by a residential association.<ref name=":2">Brian Jason Fleming, ''Regulation of Political Signs in Private Homeowner Associations: A New Approach'', 59 VAND. L. REV. 571 (2006).</ref> Such associations are legally considered private entities that are not governed by the First Amendment.<ref name=":2" /> Legal scholars have advocated for the associations to be considered state actors by the courts.<ref name=":2" /><ref>David J. Kennedy, ''Residential Associations as State Actors: Regulating the Impact of Gated Communities on Nonmembers'', 105 YALE L.J. 761 (1995).</ref> Under the [[state actor|state action doctrine]], if a private actor is delegated a public function by the state, the private actor is considered a state actor and therefore governed by the First Amendment. For a function to be a public function, it must be both traditionally and exclusively or near exclusively a state function.<ref>{{Cite web|title=State Action Requirement|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state_action_requirement|access-date=2021-04-21|website=LII / [[Legal Information Institute]]|language=en}}</ref> On the other hand, one scholar has argued that the associations are "of a private nature" because of the legal principles governing the whole arrangements. Such associations are created by "private initiative, private money, private property and private law concepts", thus the associations should be able to enforce any restrictive covenant banning political signs.<ref>Uriel Reichman, ''Residential Private Governments: An Introductory Survey'', 43 U. CHI. L. REV. 253 (1976).</ref>

The states of [[California]], [[Delaware]], [[Nevada]], [[New Jersey]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Ohio]], and [[Wisconsin]] all protect the right of homeowners to display lawn signs and prohibit homeowners associations and similar organizations from regulating or banning them.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=admin |date=2012-10-11 |title=HOA Political Signs – What About the 1st Amendment? {{!}} HOAM |url=https://www.hoamanagement.com/hoa-political-signs/ |access-date=2023-10-04 |website=Hoa Management .com |language=en-US}}</ref>

[[Kansas]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], and [[Virginia]] allow homeowners associations and similar organizations to limit or ban political lawn signs only if it is already written in the bylaws.<ref name=":3" />

[[Arizona]] and [[Texas]] prohibit homeowners associations and similar organizations from banning lawn signs during or around an election.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=33-1808 - Flag display; political signs; caution signs; for sale, rent or lease signs; political and community activities; definitions |url=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/33/01808.htm |access-date=2023-10-04 |website=www.azleg.gov}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Thompson |first1=Kelsey |title=Can Texas HOAs, apartment complexes restrict political signs? |url=https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/can-texas-hoas-apartment-complexes-restrict-political-signs/ |access-date=4 July 2024 |publisher=Nexstar Media Inc. |date=16 October 2022}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Sign war]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Media manipulation}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lawn Sign}}
[[Category:Political campaign techniques]]
[[Category:Signage]]