Local attorney Matt O'Laughlin says federal judge Scott Wright has blocked the city from enforcing its political sign ordinance.
O'Laughlin says his clients, Phillip and Antoinette Ishmael, will put up their "Hey Claire I want my signs back!" sign this afternoon.
The sign was 32 square feet, which the city argued was too big. But the judge ruled, after arguments, that the law violated the first amendment.
The ruling hasn't been published, O'Laughlin says, but he's sending wording to the judge and the city attorney's office for a final okay.
UPDATE: At 4:00 this afternoon, a 4x8 Talent for Senate sign went back up at 72nd and Ward Parkway. The "hey Claire" sign will go up, the Ishmaels say, later this week.
City attorney Galen Beaufort says he'll see if the ordinance "needs to be redrafted."
Watch for video tonight at kansascity.com, and more on the story in Thursday's Star.
Posted by Dave Helling
I will vote for Claire but I applaud this ruling. It's a victory for free speech.
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 03:15 PM
So anonymous, you would vote for a candidate who lets her staff steal her opponents signs? Wonder what else she lets her staff get away with|? Or encourages them to do ?
Posted by: John Boy | October 18, 2006 at 03:17 PM
"So anonymous, you would vote for a candidate who lets her staff steal her opponents signs? "
I am not a Claire supporter (big suprise) but to personally blame her for something as juvenille as stealing signs is a little off kilter. I do believe in what the Ishmaels wrote on their sign, there was no one else to ask for their signs back.
Posted by: craig | October 18, 2006 at 03:24 PM
John Boy! Did you see Claire or any of her staff stealing the sign?
Posted by: FedUp! | October 18, 2006 at 03:26 PM
Speaking of signs, is the sign advocating a no vote on stem-cell research parked in front of the Diocese of Kansas City on Gillham risking its tax-exempt status?
Posted by: Mister Sinister | October 18, 2006 at 03:31 PM
Mister Sinister,
I don't think so, since it is a ballot issue not a candidate. I could be wrong, but I think churches are allowed to support or oppose ballot issues publicly.
(I am in support of Ammendment 2, just trying to clarify, if I am wrong, sorry)
Posted by: craig | October 18, 2006 at 03:35 PM
"is the sign advocating a no vote on stem-cell research parked in front of the Diocese of Kansas City on Gillham risking its tax-exempt status?"
No.
See:
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/churchpolitics.htm
What sorts of things are churches and other religious organizations allowed to do? They can invite political candidates to speak so long as they don’t explicitly endorse them. They can speak out about a wide variety of political and moral issues, including very controversial matters like abortion and euthanasia, war and peace, poverty and civil rights.
Commentary on such issues can appear in church bulletins, in purchased advertisements, in news conferences, in sermons, and wherever else the church or church leaders would like their message to be transmitted. What does matter, however, is that such comments are limited to the issues and do not stray towards where candidates and politicians stand on those issues.
Posted by: crd | October 18, 2006 at 03:37 PM
Very good crd I commend that statement with the factual information.
Posted by: LMAO | October 18, 2006 at 03:45 PM
Wait a minute.
Me, CRD, and LMAO all agree on an issue.
John can I borrow your tinfoil hat?
I am getting scared.
Posted by: craig | October 18, 2006 at 03:49 PM
The answer to your question Mister Sinster is no, an organization that is 501(c)3 "are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office." This is where the issue gets sticky. I know that the 2004 election was hot and heavy during one of my tax classes and it was interesting time in class.
As for the sign: I travel down Ward Parkway every other day and I can say that sign is a great eye sore. Yes it is protected from freedom of speech, but if I was their neighbors and paid what they did for their house- I would expect some respect from them. Than again I have never been a fan of placing literature in my yard, takes away from its splendor.
Posted by: UMKCAcctngStudent | October 18, 2006 at 03:53 PM
That's great! My 40 square foot sign "GEORGE CAN I HAVE MY COUNTRY BACK" is ready to go.
Posted by: DKC | October 18, 2006 at 03:57 PM
funny, that's what the last vandal before the sign was taken down tried to change the ishmaels' sign to. and you are?
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 04:01 PM
Sign stealing is done by both camps, get off of you high horse.
Posted by: BunE | October 18, 2006 at 04:03 PM
just saying, if you're going to toss the poo, make sure the poo don't get on you.
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 04:12 PM
Has anyone checked in Cynthia Clark Campbell's garage for the missing sign(s)? Even though we haven't heard much from her lately, as you recall she was quite skilled at taking yard signs, just didn't have that "not getting caught" part down very good.
Posted by: Doug Coleman | October 18, 2006 at 04:30 PM
Signs! They remind me of flash cards in primary school. The pols don't think very much of our intelligence level if they think the planting of a sign in a yard will cause to vote for that candidate.
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 04:37 PM
anan @4:37,
That depends on how well respected you are among your neighbors. I have put one political sign in yard in my life, and because of my knowledge of the candidate that I supported, I know for a fact that most of my neighborhood voted for that candidate. Some people asked me why I supported the person and where non committal before talking to me but voted for the candidate after talking to me about him.
Posted by: craig | October 18, 2006 at 05:10 PM
Many in my neighborhood are voting for Talent. They are hesitant to show support with a sign because of the vandalism many Talent supporters have endured. Thanks to the Ishmaels for showing courage!
Maybe we will see more Talent signs in yards after today's decision. I know there will be support for Jim on election day!
Posted by: jason | October 18, 2006 at 05:20 PM
Stealing signs is the work of teenagers. And as obnoxious as it is, it's far from "vandalism." Poor poor republicans, afraid to express their support because they have so little power.
Posted by: Roos | October 18, 2006 at 05:37 PM
" Poor poor republicans, afraid to express their support because they have so little power."
Both federal houses, the White House, both MO houses and the governership.
I may not support all of those above that I just named (mainly the MO governor) but to say the republican have so little power is somewhat misguided.
Posted by: craig | October 18, 2006 at 05:43 PM
yes, teenagers: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/surprise-young-democrats-busted.html
but the again: http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/politics/3569536/detail.html
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 05:45 PM
SIGNES ARE NOT THE IMPORTANT ISSUE. RETIREING THE SENATOR THAT IS A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL REPUBLIC CONGESS IS. WE NEED SOMEONE THAT WILL TAKE THE INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY, AND OUR STATE. THE ROYAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESS MUST BE RETURNED TO THE U S CONGRESS THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE NPT JUST THE WISHES OF KING GEORGE(THE PRESIDENT)
Posted by: the drowsy cobra | October 18, 2006 at 05:47 PM
Stealing signs is not as bad as stealing elections.
VIDEO EXCLUSIVE - The Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney Vote-Rigging Scandal as Seen in the New E-Vote Documentary 'Eternal Vigilance'
http://bradblog.com/video/flvplayer/FlvPlayer.html?file=http://blip.tv/file/get/Hotpotato-ETERNALVIGILANCETheFightToSaveOurElectionSytstem839.flv&width=320&height=240&OrigWidth=320&OrigHeight=240
EXCLUSIVE: FIRST BUSH-APPOINTED CHAIR OF U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION SAYS 'NO STANDARDS' FOR E-VOTING DEVICES, SYSTEM 'RIPE FOR STEALING ELECTIONS'!
Former Chair Says He 'Was Deceived', EAC and Federal Efforts for Election Reform 'A Charade', 'Travesty'!
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3491#more-3491
Posted by: John Evans | October 18, 2006 at 05:57 PM
need we bring up illinois in 1960? florida in 2000 (bush won by more votes in the AP's recount)? lest we forget about ACORN and its fake voters or, generally, the democrats' voting dogs and voting dead.
sounds like brad's hedging his bets b/c he thinks he's going to lose this one. can you say "rove-phobia"?
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 06:01 PM
It would serve us all well to have a sensible overhaul of voting practices. A paper trail is always a good idea. Ensuring access to the polls for all -- definitely a good idea.
As we've already discussed ad nauseam, voter suppression has been far more prevalent than people voting w/o proper identification. If we're going to overhaul the voter id process, let's have it be no more onerous than the current system of voter registration.
Posted by: CRD | October 18, 2006 at 06:05 PM