CANMORE – Canmore residents can expect to see far fewer election signs on public spaces in the next municipal election.
Council approved restricting the placement of election signs on municipal property at its Tuesday (July 2) meeting.
Coun. Joanna McCallum – who brought forward the motion early in the term and won’t be running for council in 2025 – said a key purpose is to allow more people an opportunity to run for public office.
“The pressure to fund unnecessary election infrastructure not only works to level the playing field for candidates but also pushes candidates to build on their community relationships and effectively articulate their vision for the community to the electorate,” she said, adding it was part of “creating a democratic yet inclusive atmosphere where more citizens could see themselves serving the community this role.”
Coun. Wade Graham said felt it “enhances the accessibility to democracy for people to run,” noting he largely heard negative feedback from people during the last municipal election from the amount of signs in the community.
“The cost of signs is significant, the environmental impact of signs is significant and it is not the only way in this day and age. … There are more effective ways to campaign than littering our public spaces with signage,” he said.
Council voted 4-2, with Couns. Tanya Foubert and Karen Marra opposed. McCallum was virtually attending the meeting and due to technical issues unable to take part in debate.
McCallum, however, previously attempted similar motions in 2013 and 2017, but were ultimately voted down by past councils.
She had stressed signs should still be part of a candidate’s efforts, but be restricted to private property since it meant more effort in engaging voters and learning the issues that are important to them.
“When I look at the results of the last four election cycles, every person elected earned their name recognition based on their work ethic, relationships and service in the community,” she said. “These qualities were there long before they hammered in their first sign.
Mayor Sean Krausert said the 2021 municipal election “was [a] breaking point” due to the visual clutter and “absolute proliferation of signage” that was on municipal property.
He noted there’s several ways for people to reach people from community forums, newspaper advertising, social media and websites.
“If you want to go the way of signs, I think it’s more meaningful to get support from people willing to say ‘I’ll put this on my front yard or deck’,” he said.
Foubert, one of two votes of dissent, said she felt it could give an unfair advantage to incumbents running for re-election in addition to possibly leading to less of a voter turnout.
“I find that eliminating the potential for political campaign signs on all public property to be heavy-handed,” she said. “I think if we have issues around clutter, we can address those without infringing upon the ability of people to use the public realm to express themselves as part of their election campaign.”
A 2015 study analyzed four 2014 Alberta by-elections and the impact election signs had on private property.
“I do think lawn [election] signs play a role in informing people that a municipal election is coming up, encouraging them to do research, make a decision and go vote on election day,” said Janet Brown, a pollster and political commentator who completed the 2015 study with Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt.
Bruce Eidsvik, a Canmore resident, voiced his “strong opposition” to the changes and called it “undemocratic.”
“Political signs are crucial for candidates to communicate messages and increase visibility. Limiting their placement, restricts this vital form of expression,” Eidsvik, the lone public speaker at the public hearing, told council.
He said incumbent candidates have an advantage over people newly running for elected office and said “democracy is worth dealing with temporary visual clutter for 30 days every four years.”
“Signs still make an important difference. Public spaces have high visibility and have proven to lift voter turnout.”
Caitlin Miller, the Town’s manager of protective services, said one of the recommendations brought to council was to have a separate bylaw to election signage to make it “easier to find, wasn’t buried in the large land use bylaw and was clear you were able to make changes to that bylaw a little easier.”
Removing it from the land use bylaw also means a public hearing for any future changes wouldn’t be needed.
Coun. Jeff Hilstad said separating it from the land use bylaw makes any future changes take place more quickly.
“We can do it in one meeting. We don’t have to do all the steps we did to get to here, so if in the future we decide it was a horrible idea we can change that,” he said.
Hilstad added for signs to go on private property, a candidate will have to get the landowner’s permission and is a way “to connect with your community.”
The new bylaw would also allow council to amend it in the future without the need for a public hearing.
Council approved changing the new bylaw to be a $50 total fine for any sign picked up by a peace officer after it was proposed at $50 a day. Miller said a focus on education rather than issuing fines would first be done, but an investigation would take place before a fine is issued.
She highlighted they’d work with the clerk’s office to inform people when nomination packages are picked up by people running for council.
A second motion from Foubert to allow election signs on Bow Valley Trail was defeated 4-2, with her and Marra in support.
Foubert said she felt it was a compromise to allow some signs on municipal property since “eliminating all signs from public property goes too far” and Bow Valley Trail is largely commercial with little residential on it.
Lori Williams, a political scientist at Mount Royal University, said the amount of signs can be an indicator of voter engagement, particularly the amount on private property.
“It indicates somebody’s a bit more engaged, more willing and more likely to come out and vote and to influence others with their vote,” she said. “If there are a lot of signs, that can be a good indicator that a candidate is doing well and likely to win. We do see a correlation between the number of private property signs and the likelihood of success.”
Though she said election signs on public property don’t show the same level of success in engaging voters as those on private property, she said it can have some impact.
In Canmore, election signage was the biggest combined expense for candidates running for public office.
According to the financial disclosures from 13 of 14 Canmore candidates in the last election, a total of $22,475.98 was spent on signage of the combined $63,314.59. It was the highest single amount, with stickers, advertising, mailouts, brochures, door knockers and websites being other expenses.
Graham was the lone councillor without an itemized breakdown of expenses, but said at the July 2 meeting it was one of his biggest expenses.
Williams said placing a sign on private property can influence people, especially since it’s a highly public way to declare support for a candidate or candidates.
“People on the fence aren’t going to get a lawn sign put on their property. … If somebody’s got a lawn sign on their property, that’s indicating to anybody who drives by and to their neighbours that this candidate or party has won their support. They’re willing to take a stand publicly,” she said.
Brown said rather than fully restrict removing election signs from municipal property, specific guidelines should be instituted.
Council did explore potentially allowing four public locations for signs, but ultimately decided against that possibility.
“I can understand why they’re a problem for people, but I think it’d be better if Town council put some rules and regulations around how to use public property for lawn signs rather than ban them outright,” she said.
“No one’s arguing lawn signs don’t belong on private property, but there are certain people living in certain housing situations where it’s difficult to display a lawn sign.”
Both Williams and Brown said with voter turnout low for municipal elections, it’s important to not do anything that may impact people participating in democratic elections.
Four of the past six Canmore municipal elections have had eligible voter turnout of between 38 and 42.03 per cent.
“I can understand council may put rules to control those things like size, number of signs, but they do serve an informational purpose. Anything that might be seen as having a negative impact on voter turnout I don’t think will go over well with the public. … Voter turnout is so low, so I think any move on a council that could stifle voting even more could be open to criticism that it’s anti-democratic.”
