Season of signs

Oct. 10, 2006

By Michael Rovito

Frontiersman

MAT-SU - During the lead-up to municipal elections in the Mat-Su Borough, the vast forests of Alaska were rivaled by an ever-growing forest of campaign signs directed at voters cruising the roads and highways of the area.

Technically, every sign placed next to the road in a state right-of-way is illegal, and subject to removal by the state Department of Transportation. But more and more appeared every day before voters cast their final ballot, flooding motorists' vision with brightly colored campaign messages.

&#8220We do try to do a sweep of the area,” said Paula Brault, DOT's supervisor for right-of-way property management, adding that most candidates pick up their signs before a department truck does it for them.

But it's not just DOT that raises concerns over where signs are located. The advertisements also become a source of controversy between candidates vying to take would-be votes from their competitors.

The past borough election season in the Mat-Su, and the ongoing state campaigns, have seen their share of sign controversies. School board candidate Christian Hartley, for instance, accused two fellow candidates of erecting signs on private property to garner a few extra votes - a charge to which candidates Donald Zoerb and Tamie Miller responded by saying campaign volunteers place signs for them and may have made mistakes.

House District 15 independent candidate Myrl Thompson and Republican Fred Agree, who is not running for office, have had an online war of words over Thompson's signs, their placement along roads the primary subject of debate.

But just how effective are campaign signs? And do they really play a large part in swaying someone's vote?

Gerald A. McBeath, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said that, while he is unaware of studies directly related to how signs affect the outcome of an election, they certainly are useful in many aspects.

&#8220They're one of the most transparent forms of political advertisements,” McBeath said, referring to the abundance of visibility signs get on roadways and in neighborhoods.

He added that most controversy over signs - be it their placement, message or any other complaint - usually has a partisan angle to it, with members of an opposing party doing their best to limit the exposure of the competition.

Campaign signs are routinely torn down or vandalized to demonstrate that some part of a candidate's platform is not liked, McBeath said, proving the opposition's point through actions instead of words.

McBeath shared his own experiences of running for school board in Fairbanks, saying some of his campaign signs were lost to vandals he figures didn't like his politics.

Some limited research points to signs being more effective than some may think. Each sign has the potential to represent as many as six votes in the candidate's district, the study found, making their visibility extra important.

But Bruno Kappes, a professor of psychology and health science at the University of Alaska Anchorage, cautioned that campaign signs only play a small part in deciding an election.

&#8220If you can't remember who to vote for, the more signs you see sway the vote,” Kappes said, referring to those voters on the fence with their voting decisions.

Kappes added the current mentality of voters these days stays along party lines, with those loyal to a certain party voting for that party's candidate no matter who it is - for them, political advertisements mean nothing.

The campaign signs, he said, then come into play in an effort to attract the votes of independents or undecided voters: those who sometimes decide the outcome of a race.

Now that voters are turning their attention to local races for seats in the state Legislature, more voices are being raised about where fellow candidates choose to position their signs.

Thompson, House District 15's independent candidate, received an online tongue-lashing recently from Agree, a Republican and former member of the state party's central committee of the state.

In e-mails provided to the Frontiersman, Agree accuses Thompson of illegally placing signs in highway rights of way, adding that he thinks Thompson can't find anyone to let him post on their land.

Thompson called Agree's message partisan bullying, adding that it has taken place before.

Agree, who is employed by Custom Design Display, an Alaska political sign company, admits he wants to limit Thompson's exposure, but maintains the independent's signs are illegally placed.

Agree is a supporter of Thompson's district opponent, Republican incumbent Mark Neuman.

&#8220Well, I don't like him as a person,” Agree said, adding that Thompson is putting signs in highway rights of way near homes of those who don't support him to make it seem like they do.

Responding to Agree's accusations, Thompson said the Trapper Creek man is wrong, and all his signs are on the property of people from whom he has permission.

&#8220I ain't going to waste my time trying to prove something to Fred Agree,” Thompson said.

He added that smaller yard signs bearing his name may have been moved without his knowledge, but large signs, especially those on the Park Highway, are legal.

And so the election time tug of war over campaign signs continues.

One longtime political figure in the Mat-Su who has seen sign controversies occur every year during election time said things are starting to get worse.

Jay Nolfi, who served on the borough assembly from 1993-99, said she has seen everything from vandalizing to outright theft of campaign signs.

&#8220It's something you wouldn't want to think would happen,” Nolfi said, adding that her owns signs were knocked over and stolen during her runs for office in the '90s.

She put a more dire outlook on the current political atmosphere.

&#8220Running for an office now, you're practically risking your life,” Nolfi said.

Contact Michael Rovito at 352-2252 or michael.rovito@

frontiersman.com.