Hello Friends at PAN,
The State of Vermont Agency of Transportation is reviewing its policy regarding Murals and other Art in Transportation projects – specifically as it relates to murals/signage (
Vermont’s Billboard Law), the Highway Beautification Act, and as it relates to free speech. (See sample article they referenced below) They are looking for input from us.
Do any of you have any sample policies, language, or definitions and/or know of any you can share with me that might inform our conversation with them?
__________________________________________
INFORMATION: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY - Reed ET AL. v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, ET AL Supreme Court Decision
The purpose of this message is to provide clarification of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Reed ET AL. v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, ET AL. This case invalidated the Town of Gilbert’s restriction on temporary directional signs by a 9-0 margin. The decision can be found athttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf.
The case revolved around a pastor of a church, Clyde Reed, who rented space for services at various locations in Gilbert, Arizona. He would place signs bearing the church name early Saturday morning in the area announcing the time and location of those church services, and would not remove the signs until about midday on Sunday. The Town of Gilbert has a comprehensive sign code that restricts the size, number, duration, and location of certain types of signs, including temporary directional signs based upon the message on the signs. The church was cited for exceeding the time limits for displaying temporary direction signs and for failing to include an event date on the signs. Mr. Reed brought suit after the church received an advisory notice from the Town of Gilbert that it violated the Sign Code, claiming that the Sign Code violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Reed.
The United States Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965(HBA); therefore, the HBA is still a valid law, the requirements of which the States are supposed to enforce as a grant-in-aid condition. In fact, during this case, the Federal government filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief pointing out how the HBA was constitutional even though the Gilbert ordinance was not. The Supreme Court Justices expressed various reasons why they ruled the Gilbert, Arizona ordinance was unconstitutional. Due to these varying opinions, the likelihood of potential challenge to certain aspects of the HBA is not entirely clear; however, the HBA is still in effect and the States must follow those requirements.
Thank you!
Michele Bailey
Senior Program Director
504/ADA Coordinator
Vermont Arts Council
136 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05633
802-828-3293
Voice and relay calls welcome