Sooke election rules on colours risk backlash

I am concerned about the District of Sooke’s proposed restrictions on “similar” colours in political signage and the proposal to shorten election sign removal timelines from three days to 24 hours. These proposals were unanimously supported by council during the April 27 meeting under agenda item 9.3. Municipalities absolutely have the right to protect their official logos and prevent deliberate attempts to make signs falsely appear “official.” However, trying to regulate broad colour palettes or generalized esthetic themes is another matter entirely. Who decides what

colours are “too similar”? What objective standard would be used? Coastal communities naturally use blues, teals, greens, oranges, and sunset tones in branding and design. Those colours are not proprietary. Canadian courts have repeatedly ruled that political signage is protected expression under the Charter. In Ramsden v. Peterborough, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down overly broad municipal restrictions on public posters. More recently, Kaps v. Surrey reinforced that municipalities must use clear, objective, and politically neutral rules when regulating political expression. There is a

major difference between stopping someone from copying a logo and trying to control the use of common colours. If the district’s goal is to prevent confusion, the solution is straightforward: prohibit deliberate attempts to imitate official district branding in a way that misleads the public. That is reasonable and enforceable. Attempting to police broad colour similarity is subjective, difficult to enforce fairly, and risks unnecessarily restricting political expression during an election period.

District of Sooke, election signs, political signage, colour restrictions, Charter of Rights, Ramsden v. Peterborough, Kaps v. Surrey, municipal regulation, agenda item 9.3