After Connoquenessing Township stepped back from its political sign restrictions, resident Mark Williams on Friday restored the two signs on his property which he removed when the permit expired. Submitted photo

Connoquenessing Township residents can now display signs advocating for or against a certain political position on their own property without needing a permit, having to pay a fee or being required to remove them after a certain period of time.

The township chose to stop enforcing — and will likely rewrite — its political sign ordinance after the American Civil Liberties Union stepped in on behalf of its residents.

Mark Williams, a Connoquenessing Township resident who joined a group of other residents last year in displaying signs dissenting from the township’s plan to build a sewage plant off Walsh Road, said he reached out to the ACLU of Pennsylvania because he believed the township was overstepping its bounds.

“I felt that the sign ordinance was being applied in a way that restricted residents’ liberties or freedoms to communicate an issue within the community,” Williams said.

According to Rich Ting, an ACLU attorney, the township required the residents with the anti-sewage plant signs to go through a permitting process, pay a $30 fee and a $50 refundable deposit and remove the signs after a certain time period.

Those limitations on political signs on private property violate the First Amendment, Ting said. Municipalities cannot require permits for “non-commercial” signs on private property, regulate the content of messages — as the township did by differentiating political from other non-commercial signs — or place time limits for such signs.

When Williams reached out to the ACLU, Ting sent the township a letter informing it of the First Amendment violations within its sign ordinance. The township then acknowledged existing law and court cases establishing residents’ rights to display non-commercial signs.

Andrew Menchyk, the township’s solicitor, said the township “has a policy of not commenting on pending legal matters,” but said the township never intended to violate its residents’ constitutional rights.

“The sign ordinance was enacted in 2013. The Supreme Court decision (limiting municipalities’ ability to restrict sign messages), which is Reed v. Town of Gilbert, that was a 2015 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which postdated the ordinance,” Menchyk said. “Never at any time has the township taken any act to infringe its residents' right to free speech.”

Menchyk said the township is currently not enforcing the ordinance’s permitting, fee and time-limit restrictions, and noted supervisors will likely move to rewrite the ordinance in the future.

As for Williams, he put his two signs on property — without needing to pay a fee, get a permit or take it down — Friday.

“I think citizens of the community have the right to communicate via signs,” Williams said. “I thank Connoquenessing Township for reviewing the sign ordinance and clarifying the position that political message yard signs on private property are not subject to the township permit process or to time limits.”