The early crop is a little thicker than usual because the Republicans have a hot primary for governor, nominations for many General Assembly seats are being contested and Wilmington's Democrats need a candidate for mayor. You can always predict that the planting of signs will lead to an outcry in letters to the editor, and talk shows from those who feel our gorgeous landscape is being polluted. But if the First Amendment means anything, it means that this form of speech is too precious by far to be curtailed for that reason. Perhaps that's why I've never objected to those signs, which are nothing compared to what happens in foreign countries, where every square inch of every wall seems to be covered with the same pictures of the same candidates or party symbols. Poles are loaded with ads for painters, apartments, etc., even though they're illegal.
Political placards are among the few indications that anybody cares about primaries and elections.
I wonder, though, why any candidate or party believes spending money on those signs will influence a single vote. I do object to candidates who don't control their enthusiastic followers and allow them to plant signs that block drivers' vision. Although federal courts ruled in the 1990s that officials could not take down signs for Democratic hopeful Daniel Rappa, the court also left open that signs could be banned from the interstates or intersections where they constitute a danger to motorists. All candidates should be on notice that if any signs are hazards or are not removed within a week or so after the elections, they will have to pay for county or state employees to remove them. I'm glad to see a possible investigation into the 2000 federal census.