Editorial

Marvin Case may be reached at (360) 687-5151, by mail, P.O. Box 2020, Battle Ground, WA 98604 , and via email at Staff@TheReflector.com. The Reflector assures the public that it has no caller identification (caller ID) feature with its phone system, guaranteeing anonymity for callers who so choose.

Candidates deserve praise
Three candidates for Clark County commissioner have agreed to conduct their campaigns this summer and fall without installing outdoor signs.
Incumbent county commissioner Marc Boldt, and challengers Jeanne Harris and Martyn Butler, have signed an agreement document offered by this writer, pledging not to install outdoor signs within the circulation area of this newspaper.
In exchange for this agreement, The Reflector will provide column space for all three candidates, every other week, until the Nov. 4 general election.
The idea behind this program is that outdoor signs provide no informational or educational value for voters. They may have value for candidates, but voters learn virtually nothing about candidates from seeing signs.
This signs-for-column-space program has nothing to do with the blight that signs pose on the community. This writer is not an environmental extremist, concerned about the ugliness of campaign signs.
Trading column space for a reduction in outdoor signs encourages candidates to divert their resources away from wasteful signs and onto voter education. Instead of spending money on campaign signs, candidates can print and hand out brochures that tell voters about themselves. They can purchase media time and space to broadcast information. They can spend their time going door-to-door to meet voters. And they can devote their energies in other ways to disseminate voter information instead of digging holes in the ground and pounding nails.
This writer has had limited success over the years in persuading candidates to make this agreement. Some candidates will always say “yes” to going without signs. Some will agree in certain situations. Some will never agree.
Commissioner Marc Boldt, for example, has consistently and quickly said “yes” to going without signs. He doesn’t confer with others. He doesn’t need to meet with a campaign committee. He doesn’t take time to evaluate his competition and the pros and cons of outdoor signs. He just says “yes.” Period. That is very admirable.
And in this race, Jeanne Harris has said “yes” before and has agreed again. Newcomer Martyn Butler was also quick to agree to the no-sign idea. All three deserve special commendation for their agreement to reach out to voters with information rather than just their name.
A similar agreement was nearly reached with the seven candidates for the other county commissioner post up for election this year. Several candidates agreed to the idea but one did not. That ended the effort.
All candidates for the same office must agree to go without signs or the deal falls apart. There would be no equity to providing free column space for one candidate who perhaps can’t afford signs, while his opponent covers the area with signs. That would be like taking sides in an election, something this newspaper does not do.
Some candidates who say “no” to the agreement shift the blame to their support committees, saying their committees oppose the idea for one reason or another. And some candidates say “no” because, they say, their supporters want to help and one visible way they can help is by putting up signs.
Political campaign signs are generally protected by constitutional provisions of free speech. While it is illegal to put up an off-site sign reading “Neal’s Barber Shop,” it is legal to advertise a political campaign just about anywhere. Thus the only way to convert signs to a program of voter education is by agreement, not some new law.
Both incumbents and challengers are giving something up when they agree to go without signs. Incumbents have a warehouse full of signs from a prior election ready to use the next time around. They are giving up the easy and fairly inexpensive use of those existing signs by signing The Reflector agreement.
Challengers generally have less name familiarity than incumbents and could benefit a great deal from signs. They are giving that up. On the other hand, they generally have less money and signs are expensive.
Starting this week, Boldt, Harris and Butler will offer their thoughts on county issues for the benefit of the voting public. Hopefully readers will find their columns informative and helpful in making voting decisions. And of course readers are welcome to respond with letters about anything these candidates have to say.