Campaign sign violations by Seaside mayoral candidate not enforced following legal concerns

After mayoral candidate and current Seaside City Council member Alex Miller pushed back against the City of Seaside when officials fined him $7,000 for posting numerous campaign signs a day before the city’s code allowed, the city officials have decided they won't enforce most of the violations.  

On July 16,  Miller signed a declaration of intent to install temporary election campaign signs that explicitly stated he understands and agrees that he is personally responsible for the placement of signs no more than 60 days before the election, or Friday, Sept. 4 for this campaign cycle. Campaign volunteers then posted signs, largely along Fremont Boulevard and Broadway Avenue, on Sept. 3, prompting the fines. 

Miller admits to signing the declaration but argues that the sign ordinance is unconstitutional and breaches the First Amendment. He says he previously voiced opposition to the 60-day restriction to the city attorney before the violation.  

"When I'm elected mayor of Seaside, I will make sure the city is following the law and I will request a review of all of our city codes,” Miller says. “The City has an obligation to keep up with current case law and make sure that our codes are enforceable before trying to enforce them on residents."

Seaside City Attorney Sheri Damon says that after Miller raised legal concerns and asked the City to suspend enforcement of the sign ordinance and set aside the violations, citing cases that dealt with the issue in other cities—such as in the City of Antioch, where a 60-day pre-election restriction directed specifically at political signs was found unconstitutional—Seaside leaders began reconsidering the rules. 

“Those cases raise legitimate concerns about regulations that single out political signs for more restrictive treatment than other signs,” Damon says. “For example, the City of Antioch invalidated a 60-day pre-election restriction directed specifically at political signs, and Reed v. Town of Gilbert (in Arizona) invalidated message-based distinctions among categories of signs. Those principles warranted careful consideration.”

City officials then decided not to proceed with enforcement of the citations, which are based solely on the time and size provisions applicable to the campaign signage. 

“This decision reflects the City Council’s direction regarding the present enforcement posture for political signs,” Damon wrote in an email to Miller on Oct. 6. “It is an exercise of enforcement discretion and is not an amendment, repeal, or permanent waiver of any provision of Chapter 17.40. The City reserves the right to consider future amendments to its sign regulations through the ordinary legislative process.”

Damon highlights that the City’s decision not to enforce the violations is “not a court ruling resolving the constitutionality of every provision of the sign ordinance.”

Miller’s two public right-of-way sign violations, however, warranted a different response.  

“Constitutional protection for a campaign message does not, by itself, establish a right to install a freestanding sign at any location on public property,” Damon says. 

City officials identified two of Miller’s signs located within the public right-of-way, but reduced the right-of-way penalties to $250 for the first sign and $500 for the second, and $260 in removal-related costs. The signs were removed but later returned to Miller.

“The distinction is important: the City declined to pursue the specified time-and-size citations, but did not agree that the constitutional objections required it to set aside the separate right-of-way violations,” Damon says. “The City’s objective is to respect protected political expression while administering lawful sign-placement requirements fairly.”