Meet the Constitution

THE YARD SIGNS outside Andrew Gause's Hawthorne office advertised Ron Paul's presidential campaign and a few of its principles, including "OUT OF IRAQ," "ABOLISH FED. RESERVE" and "EMBRACE CONSTITUTION."

The last was apparently lost on local officials. At least as far as the First Amendment goes, the only embrace they aimed to apply was a sort of chokehold.

Although Hawthorne is in fact in the United States, its officials had inexplicably adopted an ordinance banning political signs on private property for most of the year. Rather than recognize their mistake, they compounded it with a relatively zealous enforcement effort aimed at Gause and his signs. The result is a richly deserved lawsuit, filed in federal court last week by the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

If this case turns out as it should, Hawthorne will be at least the third town in the region (after Franklin Lakes and Paterson) forced to rid its books of an unconstitutional attempt to restrict political signs. The ACLU is also urging the Monmouth County borough of Shrewsbury to repeal a similar ordinance after officials tried to force a resident to take down a Barack Obama sign.

The ordinances in question all attempt to restrict the display of political signs to a period before and immediately after an election – in Hawthorne's case, from 32 days before until seven days after. Perhaps this and other sign ordinances started as well-intended efforts to discourage the unsightly clutter that campaigns often leave along streets and sidewalks. But the result, as the ACLU suit against Hawthorne notes, is a measure that "effectively bans all signs bearing political messages on private property for at least nine months of the year."

Gause, a Midland Park resident who keeps an office and a rental apartment in Hawthorne, posted two Paul signs there in December. While the Republican congressman's campaign continued well after New Jersey's February presidential primary, Gause's right to express his support for it in Hawthorne did not, local officials reckoned.

Shortly after the primary, Mayor Patrick Botbyl told the borough police to have Gause remove the signs, according to the lawsuit. Gause told the Herald News that he got a personal visit on the matter from the police chief and two other officers. He eventually removed the signs after he was cited and threatened with daily fines.

At one point, a borough lawyer responding to Gause's objections said he had researched the issue and could find no conflict between Hawthorne's ordinance and state or federal law. Gause said he sought the ACLU's assistance only after the borough repeatedly rebuffed his protests.

Hawthorne has now suspended enforcement of the ordinance and plans to amend it, the borough administrator said this week. If that's the case, perhaps this lawsuit can be speedily resolved at minimal expense.

While this case is not quite The New York Times v. Sullivan, ordinances such as Hawthorne's constitute a remarkably frontal assault on free speech. And it's exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect – the unfettered political expression that's crucial to a democratic society.

The mere existence of this ordinance and others like it does not speak well of local officials' grasp of our country's founding ideas. Before they can share an embrace with the Constitution, they might require an introduction.