Erie, Colorado: First Amendment Battleground

It's time once again for local elections in Erie. Elections here always seem to have something for the political junkie. Four years ago the mayoral race ended in a virtual tie. A series of candidate initiated recounts were finally settled by the Secretary of State. Two years ago the close election was immediately followed by an unsuccessful recall petition. What's in store this year?

My hometown newspaper might have the answer. In a story that has First Amendment implications , the Erie Review reports the following about the neighborhood in which I live:

The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions of the Arapahoe Ridge Homeowners’ Association as posted on its Web site forbids the display of political signs on property within the neighborhood.

The HOA reiterated this stance today with a message to all homeowners indicating that citations will be issued for homes displaying political signs.

This means I may have some difficulty displaying these.

For once I don't blame Bush. Greedy developers and short-sighted home buyers are responsible for this one.

HOAs were originally designed to enforce race-restrictive covenants. But with the rise in land prices starting in the 1960's housing developers created "common interest developments" (CIDs -- now also called Planned Unit Developments or PUDs) to increase profitability. CIDs and PUDs essentially allow developers to skirt local zoning laws. Early restrictions focused mainly on maximizing density. More houses on less land equals more money.

Over time, rules on housing density morphed into all encompassing "Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions" which, in many cases, supplant civil property law. From enforcing the color of your neighbor to enforcing the color of your house; that's the short history of The Rise of the HOA. These days, unfortunately, HOA's are not content to simply mandate the hue of your beige house. Some homeowners, seeking covenant controlled communities to protect their housing investment have gotten more (much more) than they bargained for. If you're so inclined you can regale yourself with these HOA horror stories.

But the important question is Will I be able to display my faux Bush posters? this fall. Difficult to know. In Ladue v. Gilleo the United States Supreme Court ruled that "governments" are not authorized to impose signage restrictions on homeowners. But HOA's are not technically governments. And courts have typically sided with HOA's in most matters concerning covenant violations. However, there is some hope coming from, of all places, the Great State of Texas. In a rare defeat for an HOA a Texas district court in the early 1990's ruled that covenant prohibitions against political signs is an infringement on First Amendment protections (DuBose v. Meyerland). The case was never appealed to the USSC.

Wouldn't it be ironic if I had to move to Texas in order to achieve my goal of sending Bush back to Crawford?