Summit Township's revised sign ordinance as it applies to politicalsigns is both noteworthy and a basis for questions.

The ordinance requires a $50 deposit for each 20 political signs erected - a requirement geared toward ensuring that signs are removed soon after Election Day. According to the ordinance, the signs must be removed within 10 days.

"If such signs are not removed at the end of the 10-day period, the township will then have them removed and keep the full sum deposited to reimburse the expense incurred by the township," the ordinance states.

One positive effect of the $50 fee, in addition to encouraging candidates to remove their signs after the election, is that it will no doubt discourage candidates from saturating the municipality with signs. Many candidates and their campaigns will choose not to incur the expense of having many signs within a small area such as occurs routinely along New Castle Road in Butler Township.

Still, the Summit ordinance doesn't limit free speech - as many signs as a candidate chooses to have can still be erected - as long as a candidate or his or her campaign is willing the pay the special fee for each 20 signs.

One of the questions that revolves around the political-signs requirement falls within the parameter of dirty tricks. The township could be faced with a sticky judgment call if some of a candidate's signs are removed before, during or right after an election by someone from the opposing political camp, or someone else, and then start showing up along township roadways as the 10-day takedown window is expiring, putting the signs in violation of the ordinance.

Will the township abide by a no-exceptions policy, keeping the money and facing a possible legal challenge filed by the candidate whose signs are at issue? Will the township or candidate ask for a state police investigation of the purported theft and the dirty tricks, tying up valuable police man-hours? The township doesn't have a police department of its own.

What extra difficulties might there be in the case of state or national contests? It's doubtful that anyone from Washington or Harrisburg will canvass the township ensuring that signs of George W. Bush or John Kerry comply with the ordinance.

Or, will the political-sign provision of the overall sign ordinance be eventually judged unenforceable?

The thinking at the foundation of the political-signs provision is sound. Political signs shouldn't trash the landscape after Election Day. At that point, they serve no useful purpose and are, in fact, litter.

Actually, many people regard them as litter well before the election is held, but that's another issue.

The political process is an important part of America and the more people interested in public office, the better. Political signs are one way candidates achieve name recognition - most signs contain just a name, or a name and a short phrase such as what office the candidate is seeking.

The signs are not harmful, as long as they don't obstruct highway visibility or pose dangers for utility workers when those workers need access to poles.

There is nothing wrong with communities applying reasonable requirements and standards, such as what Summit Township has sought to do. However, the nagging uncertainty will be whether Summit can achieve the desired effects, without more hassle than the signs themselves represent - even if many weren't gathered up by the candidates or their supporters after the election.

The November election will be a harbinger of what could come next year, which will be a year when many municipal offices and school board seats will be up for grabs.

- J.R.K.