Yes, homeowners can legally challenge HOA rules that ban or severely restrict political signs before elections. In a landmark Washington State case, Janet and Phil Landesberg successfully fought Fairway Village Homeowners Association and won the right to display political signs on their property without arbitrary timing restrictions. Their legal victory opened the door for homeowners nationwide to understand that HOA authority over political speech is not absolute—state courts and legislatures have increasingly recognized that the First Amendment principles protecting free speech cannot be entirely overridden by an HOA covenant, especially when the goal is to suppress political expression tied to elections.
The Landesbergs’ case represents a critical shift in how courts view HOA governance. For decades, homeowners associations operated with significant discretion to enforce aesthetic rules through restrictive bylaws. But when those rules targeted the timing of political signs—effectively preventing residents from displaying them during the most important period (right before an election)—courts began asking whether such restrictions were truly about aesthetics or about suppressing speech. The appellate court’s decision in favor of the Landesbergs sent a clear message: HOAs cannot “unambiguously disallow” political yard signs before elections, especially in the critical weeks leading up to voting day.
Table of Contents
- What Does It Mean When an HOA Rule Limits Political Signs “Before Election”?
- How the Landesberg Case Defined the Legal Limits of HOA Authority
- State-by-State Legal Protections for Political Signs
- Understanding Content-Neutrality and Why Selective Enforcement Matters
- What HOAs Can and Cannot Do Regarding Size, Number, and Placement
- The Statutory Amendment: What Changed for Washington HOAs
- Building a Legal Challenge: When and How to Fight Back
- Conclusion
What Does It Mean When an HOA Rule Limits Political Signs “Before Election”?
hoa rules that restrict when residents can display political signs typically fall into three categories: outright bans on all political signs, time-based restrictions that prohibit signs during specific periods (like 60 days before an election), and conditional restrictions that allow signs only during certain candidate filing periods. The most restrictive and legally vulnerable rules are those that create a complete blackout period immediately before elections—precisely when political signs are most meaningful to voters. These restrictions are often buried in CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) that homeowners signed decades earlier, sometimes without fully understanding the speech implications. The Landesbergs’ situation illustrates this dynamic perfectly.
When they placed a Biden/Carolyn Long sign in April 2019, the HOA objected, citing timing restrictions in their bylaws. Two years later, in 2021, when they wanted to display a John Blom sign, the HOA again demanded removal. Rather than comply silently, the Landesbergs pursued a legal challenge that ultimately reached the Washington Court of Appeals. Their persistence revealed a critical gap in HOA authority: rules designed to regulate timing of political signs conflict with Washington state law, which eventually was amended to clarify that HOAs created after 2018 cannot impose such time limitations.
How the Landesberg Case Defined the Legal Limits of HOA Authority
The trial court initially sided with the Fairway Village HOA, ruling that the association had the right to enforce its timing restrictions as written in the community rules. This decision represented the traditional approach: HOAs are private organizations with contractual authority over property appearance, and homeowners voluntarily agreed to those restrictions when they purchased their homes. However, the Landesbergs appealed, and the Washington Court of Appeals took a markedly different view. The appellate court ruled that HOAs are “unambiguously disallowed from prohibiting the display of political yard signs before an election.” This distinction between the trial court and appellate court decisions reveals a crucial warning for homeowners: initial rulings against you do not mean your case is over.
The appellate court recognized that even though the Landesbergs had technically agreed to HOA rules, Washington state law stepped in to protect political speech in a way that transcended private contracts. The statute at issue—later amended by the Uniform Law Commission to cover HOAs created after 2018—essentially says that the public interest in political expression during election season overrides the HOA’s private governance interests. For HOAs created before 2018, the original statute already prohibited time-based restrictions. The limitation is important to note: the statute does not eliminate all HOA authority over signs. Associations can still impose reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on size, number of signs per lot, or placement that applies equally to all types of signage.
State-by-State Legal Protections for Political Signs
The legal landscape for political signs varies dramatically across the country, creating a patchwork of protections. California’s Civil Code Section 4710 prohibits HOAs from banning noncommercial signs, including political signs, as long as they are made of paper, cardboard, cloth, plastic, or fabric and of reasonable size. This is one of the broadest protections, essentially giving California homeowners substantial freedom to display political signs without HOA interference based solely on content. New Jersey’s Supreme Court took a middle-ground approach, ruling that HOAs cannot ban political signs outright on owners’ property but may restrict their size, number, or location if those restrictions apply equally to all signs. Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Delaware, and Maryland have all enacted similar homeowner protections, though the specifics vary by state.
Arizona’s approach is particularly strict with time-based restrictions, mirroring Washington’s eventual statutory position. In contrast, states without explicit protections leave homeowners vulnerable to HOA bans or severe restrictions, even during election season. This creates a critical limitation for residents in unprotected states: you may need to challenge an HOA rule in court rather than relying on existing law. The Landesberg case itself operates only in Washington State—it does not create binding precedent elsewhere. However, it has influenced other jurisdictions and provides a useful template for how courts can analyze the tension between HOA authority and free speech rights.
Understanding Content-Neutrality and Why Selective Enforcement Matters
One of the most powerful legal principles underlying political sign cases is the concept of content-neutrality. This means that HOA rules cannot selectively prohibit signs based on their political message—they cannot ban signs supporting one candidate while allowing another, and they cannot enforce rules more strictly against political signs than decorative signs. Viewpoint discrimination, the legal term for when rules are applied to suppress particular political perspectives, is highly vulnerable to legal challenge and can result in HOA defeats even in states without explicit political sign statutes.
The practical implication is significant: if your HOA has banned “political signs” while allowing “commercial signs” or “holiday decorations,” you have evidence of content-based discrimination that strengthens a legal challenge. Compare this to a truly content-neutral rule that limits all yard signage to two signs per lot, maximum 18 inches by 24 inches, placed at least 15 feet from the road—such a rule applies equally to all signs and can likely withstand legal challenge even if it incidentally affects political signs. The Landesberg case itself hinged on this principle: the rule was being applied to suppress the timing of political expression specifically, not to maintain general aesthetic standards equally across all yard signage. The downside of pursuing a content-neutrality challenge is that it requires detailed documentation of how the HOA enforced (or failed to enforce) its rules against other types of signs, which means homeowners need to photograph neighboring properties and keep detailed records of HOA enforcement patterns.
What HOAs Can and Cannot Do Regarding Size, Number, and Placement
HOAs retain legitimate authority over the mechanical aspects of signage in ways that courts consistently uphold. Size restrictions—such as limiting signs to a maximum of 32 square feet—are generally enforceable when applied neutrally to all signs. Similarly, rules limiting the number of signs per lot (for example, “no more than three signs per property”) can withstand legal challenge because they regulate quantity, not content. Placement rules that require signs to be set back from the street, kept off common areas, or placed away from intersections for traffic safety reasons are also typically upheld.
However, there is a critical warning embedded in these permissions: HOAs cannot disguise content-based rules as mechanical restrictions. For example, a rule that says “no signs within 30 feet of the property entrance” applies equally to all signs and is likely enforceable. But a rule that says “no political signs before September 1 in election years” is a time-based content restriction targeting political speech specifically, and it is much more legally vulnerable, especially in states like Washington that have addressed the issue. The limitation for HOAs is that their rules must be genuinely neutral and consistently enforced. An HOA that allows “welcome home” banners to stay up year-round but demands removal of political signs within 60 days has created inconsistency that undermines its content-neutral justification.
The Statutory Amendment: What Changed for Washington HOAs
Following the Landesberg decision and related legal pressure, Washington’s statute was amended through the Uniform Law Commission process to clarify the rule for HOAs created after 2018. This update is particularly significant because the original statute only clearly protected homeowners in HOAs established before 2018. The amendment extended those protections to newer HOAs, acknowledging that political speech rights should not vary based on when an HOA was legally formed.
This represents a policy decision that political expression during elections is a matter of sufficient public importance that it cannot be made subject to different legal standards depending on HOA vintage. For homeowners considering a legal challenge in another state, the Washington amendment offers a roadmap. It shows that state legislatures and uniform law organizations recognize the tension between HOA governance and political rights, and that momentum is shifting toward protecting homeowners. If you live in a state without explicit political sign protections, pointing to Washington’s amendment during legislative advocacy or during a legal proceeding could strengthen your argument about what the law should be, even if it is not yet binding in your jurisdiction.
Building a Legal Challenge: When and How to Fight Back
If your HOA is restricting political signs, several steps can strengthen your position before litigation becomes necessary. First, request from your HOA a copy of all bylaws, CC&Rs, and enforcement records related to signage restrictions. Document your own experience in detail: when you placed the sign, how the HOA communicated the violation, and what rule they cited. Second, research your state’s laws—check whether a statute like California’s Civil Code Section 4710 or Washington’s political sign protection exists.
Third, examine whether the HOA’s rule is truly content-neutral by documenting other signs permitted on neighboring properties and taking photographs. A practical consideration is that litigation is expensive and time-consuming, but often the threat of litigation is sufficient to motivate HOA boards to reconsider enforcement, especially if you can demonstrate a legal vulnerability in their rule. Many homeowners successfully negotiate a resolution—formal removal of time-based restrictions from bylaws, or at least written acknowledgment that political signs will be permitted during election season. The Landesbergs’ case required an appeal, but many disputes resolve earlier when the HOA recognizes the legal risk. The comparison is worth noting: an HOA willing to pay legal fees to defend an indefensible rule is less common than you might think, particularly when precedents like the Landesberg decision exist.
Conclusion
The Landesberg case from Washington State demonstrates that homeowners are not powerless against HOA restrictions on political signs, especially when those restrictions are timed to prevent display during election season. The appellate court’s ruling that HOAs cannot “unambiguously disallow” political yard signs before elections reflects a broader legal and policy recognition that political speech during elections serves a public interest that transcends private contractual authority. While the extent of protection varies by state—with California, Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey offering explicit statutory or case-law protections—the trajectory is clear: courts increasingly scrutinize HOA rules that effectively silence homeowners during the most politically important period of the year.
If you face HOA restrictions on political signs, research your state’s legal framework, document the HOA’s enforcement patterns, and consider whether a formal challenge is warranted. Many HOAs will negotiate rather than litigate, especially when presented with evidence of content-based discrimination or statutory violations. The Landesbergs spent years asserting their rights before achieving appellate victory, but their case now serves as precedent and encouragement for other homeowners who want to reclaim their right to political expression on their own property.