Should NH change its law on roadside political signs?

Whether it’s a November election or a March town meeting, Granite Staters are used to roadside political signs popping up like an invasive species. State law allows signs along public rights-of-way with the landowner’s permission—but it’s not always obvious who owns the land, which leads to some heated debates. This year the New Hampshire House and Senate are considering legislation to clear up who decides where roadway signs are placed.

Not all roadside signs are legal

In a public hearing back in January, Sen. James Gray (R-Rochester) testified, “If you read the statute the way it is right now, I believe that probably between 85% or more of the signs that are put up are actually illegal.” 

RSA 664:17 bans political signs from public land. However, it is legal to place a political sign on a state-owned right-of-way, so long as the sign doesn’t obstruct the safe flow of traffic and “advertising is placed with the consent of the owner of the land over which the right-of-way passes.”

Generally speaking, a right-of-way gives the state access to maintain a road beyond the exact border of the pavement. There’s no cookie-cutter standard for how far a right-of-way extends, however. Also, sometimes the state completely owns the land next to a road, and the abutting landowner is under the false impression they own the whole lot.

Confusion over the ownership of rights-of-way, and what is public land, has caused many disputes over sign placement. Every election year the Attorney General’s office fields a multitude of complaints.

Rep. Ken Weyler (R-Kingston), for example, testified that he received a cease-and-desist letter from the state after removing signs on the corner near his property.

And if someone removes a political sign that is not on their land – even if they think the sign is illegally placed – the consequences can be steep. State law carries a fine up to $2,000 for removing or vandalizing a political sign, depending on the circumstances.

An attempt to clarify landowners’ say on signs

Sen. Gray sponsored SB 45 in an attempt to clarify who gets a say over political sign placement. As introduced, that bill would give a property owner power over signs placed within rights-of-way less than ten feet from their property line.

The House considered a similar bill from Rep. Weyler, HB 423. That bill would have given the “closest abutter” power over sign placement in a right-of-way.

Legislators got stuck debating how the law might impact multiple property owners abutting the same piece of land.

The House voted to kill HB 423.

The Senate passed SB 45 after significantly amending the bill.

The Senate version of SB 45 keeps the right to post political signs in rights-of-way. It also still requires “the consent of the owner of the land over which the right-of-way passes.” It would still be illegal to post political signs on state-owned public property, but SB 45 opens the door to municipalities allowing political signs on their land.

Lastly, SB 45 adds non-political advertising and signs to the same state law. That addresses a separate concern: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional to treat political signs differently than other signs.

Ultimately, SB 45 seeks to clarify the current law around political sign placements, but it’s still up to individuals to figure out who owns the land next to a road before they put up a sign (or try to take one down).

A history of political signs along public roads

With all the debate over political signs along roadways, you might wonder if the state should simply outlaw all signs in rights-of-way.

It was, in fact, illegal to place signs in public rights-of-way before 2006. That also prompted concern about the free speech rights of private property owners, however, since rights-of-way may extend well into property that landowners maintain as part of their lawns and gardens.

Former Deputy Attorney General Bud Fitch summed up the challenges that year at a public hearing for HB 349:

“I have, over the years, had occasion to try to come up with a number of schemes, none of which I think were all that good an idea because there is no excellent idea to solve the problem that would impose some reasonable mechanism for a consequence. It is very convoluted.”

Almost two decades later, it seems like New Hampshire hasn’t made much progress on the convoluted debate.

Where do you think the law should allow political signs?

If you have an opinion on the placement of political signs, you can speak up at a public hearing for SB 45 on April 22 before the House Election Law Committee. You can learn how to share your views with Citizens Count’s Advocacy Toolkit.