by: Lauren Gailey, Associate Editor
When reports began to emerge last week that the American Civil Liberties Union’s Greater Pittsburgh Chapter rushed to the defense of a local political group alleging that selective enforcement of a campaign sign ordinance was hurting its candidates, few were surprised. After all, the ACLU is well known for its efforts to combat voter ID laws, secure LGBT rights, and promote immigration reform. What surprised many, however—and made headlines as far away as San Francisco—was that it was the Republican party that had enlisted the ACLU’s help.
The Republican Committee of Robinson Township filed a complaint with the ACLU in September. The Committee claimed that the township was selectively enforcing Chapter 26 of Robinson Township’s Ordinances, which regulates political signs, by removing the campaign signs of Republican candidates for the township’s board of commissioners from public rights of way but allowing other signs to remain in place.
In an October 23 letter to Robinson Township officials, ACLU Legal Director Witold Walczak and Staff Attorney Sara Rose contended that “while the ordinance purports to ban all political signs on public property . . . the Township’s practice has been otherwise.” Republican Committee members noted when collecting their confiscated signs that only Republican signs had been confiscated, and the ACLU claimed to have photographs showing that campaign signs, many promoting judicial candidates, and commercial advertising signs continued to be displayed on public property.
The letter argued that “[s]uch uneven enforcement represents viewpoint censorship, making [Chapter 26] presumptively unconstitutional” under the First Amendment. Because “enforcement of the law inflicts irreparable harm—it curtails political expression and does so immediately before an election—” the ACLU requested that Robinson Township suspend enforcement of Chapter 26 and threatened legal action if it did not comply. On October 25, the township agreed to suspend enforcement until at least after the November 5 general election.
To label the ACLU’s and Republican Committee’s efforts a bipartisan victory would not be strictly accurate, however. Rose points out that “many people, especially those not very familiar with the ACLU,” are not aware that the organization is nonpartisan. As stated on its website, the ACLU’s mission—to act as a “guardian of liberty, working . . . to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country”—is indeed free of partisan language.
“The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority,” Rose said. Sometimes, she explained, the views of the minority whose rights the ACLU defends are at odds with its own, as in the case of anti-abortion protestors, and even sometimes includes groups as unpopular as the Ku Klux Klan. “[W]e mean it when we say we are a nonpartisan organization,” Rose said. “We are always pleased when we are able to represent groups that are not our usual allies because it shows that our commitment to the Constitution transcends politics.”
Lauren Gailey is a third-year student at Duquesne University School of Law, where her favorite subjects include Constitutional Law and Criminal Law and Procedure.
