U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth has been straddling the line of illegal behavior since the beginning of her campaign in June. Now Bosworth posts evidence of clearly illegal activity on Twitter:
West Highway 38? Heavy traffic and industrial buildings in the distance? Wait a minute—I know that intersection. Get me Google Maps:
That campaign sign is plunked at the intersection of South Dakota Highway 38 and Interstate 29, just west of the Flying J and the Harley shop. It faces the motorists coming up the offramp and turning onto 38.
This particular sign violates the principle of consistent branding, since it displays the old crowdsourced Bosworth logo instead of the new one she paid out-of-state consultants to make. This sign in the highway right of way creates a hazard to public safety.
This sign also violates state law:
No person may place or maintain nor may any public authority permit upon any highway or public right-of-way any traffic sign or signal bearing any commercial or political campaign advertising. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor [South Dakota Codified Law 31-28-20].
Class 2 is the lighter misdemeanor, imposing a maximum of 30 days in county jail and/or $500 fine.
You may not see this sign this morning, because, if they are doing their statutorily mandated job, the Department of Transportation has already removed this nuisance.
Of course, Bosworth will see the state's removal of her illegal signs as just one more sign that government officials are conspiring to destroy her. As a bonus, guess whom she can blame for being key players in this conspiracy?
The statutory language explicitly banning political advertising from highways and rights of way comes from 2011 House Bill 1085. That bill also changed the language on removal of those signs from allowing DOT and local officials to remove the offending signs to requiring that they do so. The prime sponsor of this bill was freshman Representative Stace Nelson. Voting for this bill along with the majority was Senator Larry Rhoden. Testifying in favor of this bill in the Senate Transportation Committee was then Secretary of State's office employee Pat Powers.
They're all out to get you, Annette!
Update 10:43 CDT: Powers mentions Bosworth's sign this morning, but his original post completely ignores her obvious violation of the state law he helped pass in 2011. Powers makes the strange claim that he thinks the sign is simply leaning against the utility box at the corner. Powers is trying to cover for Bosworth, saying she didn't really "install" the sign in violation of state law, but simply leaned it against that box for the photo. Don't be stupid, Pat:
- The photo shows clearly visible plastic zip ties holding the sign to posts whose tops are visible right behind the sign.
- Check the perspective: the sign is clearly a few feet away from the utility box.
- If you just want a picture of a sign, you don't haul a big sign out to a busy intersection and shoot a nondescript background. You lean it against some hay bales in front of your neighbor's barn with some grinning, waving kids in Boz t-shirts.
At 9:15 am it was still there.
Really? The only place she could find to put up a sign is in the right of way? And she's advertising the fact she's breaking the law? Strictly amateur. The drunk photo of the candidate with a Rhino and this are just more evidence the Bosworth family organization isn't even the caliber of a state legislative campaign let alone a US Senate campaign.
Really.
And does anyone buy Pat's assertion that the sign looks like it's just leaning against the utility box for a photo, not permamently installed?
And Erika! Thanks for that on-the-spot update! Let us know if you come back that way later today if it's still there.
State Highway dept in Tripp County removed political signs of Democrats on the Saturday before the election. We finally got data from city and state on right of way. The sign in the yard was 8 x 4 feet. One foot of one end was on the ROW which we found out was 13 feet behind the curb. The ROW way varied through Winner from something like 75 ft to 100 feet and back to 75 feet. I suggested to SDHD engineer that it might be good to send a letter every year to party chairmen of all parties with maps of the right of way.
Bos signs are obviously on State ROW.
There are no rules for the Bos because that is what the new republican party believes. Rules belong to schmucks and they are way above that in their convoluted minds, where down is up and well, you get the idea, weird. The biggest sign that new republicans could erect and we should allow, would be losers. With huge letters to signify their complete abandonment of sense with regard to governing. Take It Back, Indeed!
It's coming up on 1 pm. Wonder if the sign's still there? Also wonder who made the sign. If it is who I think it is, one would think there would be some guidance on sign placement for a novice campaign. If it's still there, the campaign rapid response team must be on its way.
The law say no person may "place or maintain" nothing about "install". Don't know why pp would think this is ok. If it was a dem, he'd be freaking out
Pat also conveniently never mentioned Rounds' illegally placed sign in Aberdeen during the Gypsy Day parade. It was only breaking a city ordinance out on a vacant lot in front of the Hampton Inn.
Dick gets me thinking about city ordinances. The 38-29 intersection appears to be within Sioux Falls city limits. The City of Sioux Falls says the following in the January 2013 edition of its "Political Campaign Signs" brochure:
"[Political signs] shall not exceed 9 square feet in any residential or institutional district and 24 square feet in any office, commercial, or industrial district."
I'm not positive, but the proportions of that sign (also depicted in another photo on Bosworth's Facebook page) look 4x8, which is 32 square feet.
"Such signs may be displayed 60 days prior to, and seven days after, the election for which they are intended."
The June 3 primary is 224 days away.
"Political campaign signs can be posted on your property but not located in the driveway or intersection safety zone."
The city's diagram defines the "intersection safety zone" as a triangle with its apex at the pavement intersection and legs extending from that apex 30 feet. That sign is within 30 feet of the pavement corner.
Annette Bosworth thus appears to be in violation of Sioux Falls city ordinance as well as state law.
Sign. What sign? Gone.
If the sign was just leaning against the grey box in back of it, the sign would have to be more centered against the box, in order to stay stood up. As off center as it is in the picture the end that is farther away from the box, would be leaning one way or the other. I realize from what I learned in my college art classes that for the most attractive display the main object should be slightly off center, but I don't think this rule applies in this instance.
By 2:00 pm it was gone, and it was not leaning against the power box; it was a free-standing sign. For what it's worth, that intersection is a popular spot for people looking for handouts and/or work, but the people are usually holding the signs themselves.
Right on the visual principles, Joan. And consider the perspective given by the Google Maps image: the Hwy 38 sign sits uphill and in front of (south of) the utility box. In Annette's photo, the bottom edge of the sign sits in front of (south of) the highway sign. If the sign were leaning against the utility box, it would not be a mere 4x8 rectangle.
Gone by 2, Erika? Thanks for looking! I wonder who got it: Team Bosworth or the DOT?
It is a shame you people frightened that young woman into removing her sign. I think she will do well but not as well as Mr. Rhoden does, and when he puts his signs up you can be sure they will be up to and in bold capital letters of the law.
I'm not an art expert, but I would have made that bright red background into the shape of South Dakota.
A shame, grudz, that they chose to follow the law?
Mark, agreed! Living in a nice rectangular state makes campaign sign design a no-brainer!
Douglas Wiken, even a reminder from the SDHD engineer (or, in municipal jurisdictions, a city engineer) to party chairs, etc., of the fact that rights-of-way vary throughout the jurisdiction might be useful enough to feel justified expecting campaigns to know the rules. It might be a lot of work for the department itself to provide an all-encompassing map of their area, but reminding campaigns to check before they put up their signs (a sort of political version of the buried utilities mantra to "Call Before You Dig") seems reasonable effort on the part of the govt. and to make reasonable expectations of the campaigners.
The ROW information is not easy to find for the average person, including county chairmen. I think a good 15 minutes would be required for them to produce a map. If they can't do that, they need to change some procedures on data availability. I got the information from a city planning official who decided to be helpful for once. Now the city won't release property boundary information because they don't want it used for nefarious purposes...such as building a fence on your own property.
Exact ROW information may require making some calls, but it's pretty easy to understand that plunking a sign on the edge of the ditch not four feet from the asphalt violates the law. Senators are expected to deal with much more complicated questions than that.