By Dale Girard
Mayoral Notes
The recent political sign controversy in Claremont has generated confusion and legal debate, and I would like to take this opportunity to dispel any myths and to clarify the events and discussions. This issue arose after the New Hampshire Attorney General (AG) sent a letter to the city of Claremont on Oct. 2, 2024, directing the city to enforce RSA 664:17, which bans political advertising on public property. In response, all political signs were removed from city-owned land, as candidates worked to comply while awaiting legal clarification.
The city of Claremont’s legal counsel weighed in, offering a different interpretation of RSA 664:17. The statute states that no political advertising can be placed on public property without the owner’s consent, which the city believed allowed municipalities discretion in permitting political signs on public property. The city attorney noted this law had been challenged in court before, with legal precedents supporting a more flexible application. On Oct. 8, the city formally communicated its position to the AG’s office, requesting further clarification, but the state chose not to respond before the Nov. 5 election. As a result, the city notified all candidates they could put signs back up.
Adding to the legal issue, the ACLU sent a letter to the New Hampshire Department of Justice on Oct. 11, following a phone conversation, raising concerns that enforcing RSA 664:17 violated the First Amendment. The ACLU argued this law is a “content-based restriction on speech in a public forum,” which requires strict scrutiny under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in “Reed v. Town of Gilbert.” Essentially, any law that specifically targets political speech must be proven to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored, or it violates the First Amendment. The ACLU urged the AG to stop enforcing RSA 664:17, citing the law’s inability to meet this high legal standard.
The ACLU’s position draws on the Reed case, which established that laws treating speech differently based on their content trigger strict scrutiny. In this instance, RSA 664:17 singles out political speech, making it a content-based restriction. The ACLU pointed out that the statute does not meet the necessary legal standards to justify restricting political speech, thus violating constitutional protections. Despite these concerns, the state remained silent, leaving the situation unresolved before the election.
What this demonstrates is the need for clear and consistent guidelines. The conflicting interpretations of RSA 664:17 created confusion, not only for Claremont but for municipalities across the state. Although the city of Claremont attempted to strike a balance between compliance with the law and respecting free speech rights, the absence of clear guidance from the AG’s office left everyone uncertain.
This issue will likely continue to be a point of debate, especially with the constitutional questions raised by the ACLU. Moving forward, it’s critical that RSA 664:17 is reviewed and possibly revised to ensure that it aligns with First Amendment protections while providing municipalities with clearer rules. Claremont’s handling of this issue shows the importance of collaboration between city officials, legal experts and the state.
I commend the city, candidates and residents for handling this situation with professionalism. However, the confusion surrounding this issue highlights the need for further discussions at the state level to ensure that our laws respect both local control and constitutional rights. This is an opportunity for us to review outdated statutes and improve the process for future elections. I look forward to seeing how these discussions unfold in the months ahead.
