The Herkimer County Court judge candidate who prompted the suspension of a village ordinance calls her victory “bittersweet.”
Mary Iocovozzi, a lawyer, filed a federal lawsuit against the village in June after she received both verbal and written notice to remove her campaign signs at her 126 Mary St. residence because they were larger than designated in a village ordinance for political signs.
“This could have been avoided had the village done any real research to begin with or simply looked at the law and information from the Department of State I sent to them. Aren’t they sworn to follow the law and the Constitution?” stated Iocovozzi in a news release Wednesday. Iocovozzi will be running as a Democrat, but has also filed petitions for the Republican, Independent and Conservative tickets.
The board voted unanimously to suspend the law upon the recommendation of Bart Carrig, an alternate for the village attorney, during a regular board meeting June 21. Iocovozzi said she received a letter from the village dated July 9 about the board’s decision to repeal the ordinance.
“I tried several times to resolve the matter informally with them, but was unsuccessful and was the only candidate actually cited by the village,” she said. Signs for the other two candidates for judge, John Brennan and Stephen Getman, had been called into question, but both campaigns complied.
Iocovozzi said she researched the law and forwarded her findings to village Codes Enforcer David Kuehnle and village Attorney Nicholas Macri back when she was first notified that she was out of compliance. She said her research shows that that similar ordinances have been deemed unconstitutional in federal courts because of its restrictions of free speech.
She said she was still told she needed to remove the two three foot by six foot banners reading “Elect Mary Iocovozzi for Family Court Judge.” She complied and then followed through with the lawsuit.
“As a citizen and a candidate for a judicial office the village put me in a very uncomfortable position where I was being accused of not following the law, albeit an unconstitutional law, so I had to take some action. It’s the only thing I could do,” she said.
Iocovozzi said the law is unconstitutional because political signs are restricted to five square feet, whereas commercial signs can measure up to 32 square feet. She said she did not go through the Zoning Board of Appeals as suggested in the ordinance because “this board has no jurisdiction to suspend enforcement of any law and certainly not to rule on a law’s constitutionality.”
Village Trustee Katie Nichols, who worked on the ordinance with the village codes enforcer and village attorney for more than a year, said the law did not restrict content and therefore believed it to be legitimate.
“We wouldn’t have completed the whole process and passed the sign law if it was unconstitutional,” she said, in a phone interview Wednesday. “We did a lot of research on this and went by the guidelines of the Department of the State.”
The Village Board passed the ordinance as law last July after a public hearing where several residents questioned the board about how it would affect their business or political signs. Other than the restrictions on size, the village ordinance also states that political signs must be removed seven days after an election.
The village of New Hartford also places time restrictions on political signs, stating that “no political signs shall be put up in more than 45 days before an election and shall be removed three days after the election.” New Hartford Village Clerk Janet Durr said the only restrictions that come with the size of the sign is if it causes a problem with visibility.
Iocovozzi also said as the only candidate who is also a village taxpayer, she found the village actions “very disturbing because of the costs in time and money.”
Iocovozzi states in her press release that she was informed through a Freedom of Information Act request that the complaint about the signs was registered by Nichols. Nichols said she and others had complained about the signs and that she has notified the police department in the past about other signs that were in violation of the law.
When asked if she was satisfied with the board’s decision, Iocovozzi said “short of the court finding it unconstitutional, I think so.”
|
|
|
The Herkimer County Court judge candidate who prompted the suspension of a village ordinance calls her victory “bittersweet.”
Mary Iocovozzi, a lawyer, filed a federal lawsuit against the village in June after she received both verbal and written notice to remove her campaign signs at her 126 Mary St. residence because they were larger than designated in a village ordinance for political signs.
“This could have been avoided had the village done any real research to begin with or simply looked at the law and information from the Department of State I sent to them. Aren’t they sworn to follow the law and the Constitution?” stated Iocovozzi in a news release Wednesday. Iocovozzi will be running as a Democrat, but has also filed petitions for the Republican, Independent and Conservative tickets.
The board voted unanimously to suspend the law upon the recommendation of Bart Carrig, an alternate for the village attorney, during a regular board meeting June 21. Iocovozzi said she received a letter from the village dated July 9 about the board’s decision to repeal the ordinance.
“I tried several times to resolve the matter informally with them, but was unsuccessful and was the only candidate actually cited by the village,” she said. Signs for the other two candidates for judge, John Brennan and Stephen Getman, had been called into question, but both campaigns complied.
Iocovozzi said she researched the law and forwarded her findings to village Codes Enforcer David Kuehnle and village Attorney Nicholas Macri back when she was first notified that she was out of compliance. She said her research shows that that similar ordinances have been deemed unconstitutional in federal courts because of its restrictions of free speech.
She said she was still told she needed to remove the two three foot by six foot banners reading “Elect Mary Iocovozzi for Family Court Judge.” She complied and then followed through with the lawsuit.
“As a citizen and a candidate for a judicial office the village put me in a very uncomfortable position where I was being accused of not following the law, albeit an unconstitutional law, so I had to take some action. It’s the only thing I could do,” she said.
Iocovozzi said the law is unconstitutional because political signs are restricted to five square feet, whereas commercial signs can measure up to 32 square feet. She said she did not go through the Zoning Board of Appeals as suggested in the ordinance because “this board has no jurisdiction to suspend enforcement of any law and certainly not to rule on a law’s constitutionality.”
Village Trustee Katie Nichols, who worked on the ordinance with the village codes enforcer and village attorney for more than a year, said the law did not restrict content and therefore believed it to be legitimate.
“We wouldn’t have completed the whole process and passed the sign law if it was unconstitutional,” she said, in a phone interview Wednesday. “We did a lot of research on this and went by the guidelines of the Department of the State.”
The Village Board passed the ordinance as law last July after a public hearing where several residents questioned the board about how it would affect their business or political signs. Other than the restrictions on size, the village ordinance also states that political signs must be removed seven days after an election.
The village of New Hartford also places time restrictions on political signs, stating that “no political signs shall be put up in more than 45 days before an election and shall be removed three days after the election.” New Hartford Village Clerk Janet Durr said the only restrictions that come with the size of the sign is if it causes a problem with visibility.
Iocovozzi also said as the only candidate who is also a village taxpayer, she found the village actions “very disturbing because of the costs in time and money.”
Iocovozzi states in her press release that she was informed through a Freedom of Information Act request that the complaint about the signs was registered by Nichols. Nichols said she and others had complained about the signs and that she has notified the police department in the past about other signs that were in violation of the law.
When asked if she was satisfied with the board’s decision, Iocovozzi said “short of the court finding it unconstitutional, I think so.”
