FAIRFIELD — Faced with a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the city's regulation of political signs, council is expected to amend the requirements rather than contest the issue in federal court.

        City Law Director John Clemmons said Wednesday the contested part of the law restricts political signs on private property to 65 days before an election and requires all signage be removed within 10 days after the election.

        The candidate must post a $100 bond to be forfeited to the city should the regulations be violated.

        Michael D. Morgan, an attorney for Arnold Engel, a candidate for Fairfield school board this November, filed the federal court suit. It says the ordinance violates “pure political speech protected by the First Amendment” and seeks an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing the contested provisions.

        The lawsuit insisted the city must allow political signage on private property at any time as long as the signage is properly maintained.

        “This is a wise decision on the part of the city,” Mr. Morgan said Wednesday. He acted as a volunteer attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in the case. “It avoids costly and useless litigation, and opens up a traditional forum of political expression to the people of Fairfield.”

        Besides muffling free speech, the suit contends the law, on the books since the early 1980s, provides an unfair advantage to incumbents.

        The suit states: “The display of such signs can be particularly significant where, as here, a candidate is attempting to counterbalance the name recognition of incumbent opponents.”

        Mr. Clemmons said the law's purpose was to curb a plethora of unsightly signs blighting neighborhoods. The law will still prohibit the display of political placards on public right-of-way and public property. However, the law director noted that the restriction has been difficult to enforce.

        Mr. Clemmons said he met with city council to review First Amendment law.

        “I think, in review, the city agrees that the issues raised would probably be seen as unconstitutional by the court and that we would not be successful,” Mr. Clemmons said. The suit seeks attorney fees, and the city could be responsible for Mr. Engel's legal costs. “We did not want to incur those costs,” he said.

        The law director said that since the ordinance falls under the city's zoning code, a public hearing is required to amend it to drop the contested provisions. That hearing will be 7 p.m. Sept 10 at city hall. Council is expected to vote on the amended ordinance late next month.

        Mr. Clemmons said the amended law doesn't affect commercial sign restrictions.

Many drivers risk blowouts
Divided court won't stop execution
Graham crusade likely in June
Blanchester vows to keep searching for body
Rights at issue in poison case
Letter asks money for supporting police
Over-the-Rhine apartments new, improved
Flower boxes decorate Over-the-Rhine
Dog licenses cost more
Reading promotes new image
Union joins call for job training
Woman's home fix-up proceeds
College Hill may get Children's psych unit
Congrats
Doctor-choice idea adds to cost
Fairfield sign restriction to be dropped
Four charged in school vandalism
In the schools
Local Digest
Newport on the Levee just for fun
United Way drive begins in N.Ky.
Democratic chief sighs over Lucas votes
Florence prepares for Y'all Festival
Ky. agencies end public prayers
Ky. Education Notes
Cops encounter language barrier
Kentucky Digest
Ohio high court upholds Cincinnati death penalty case
School eyed by preservationists closed