Sign Wars

It's getting contentious out there

You know it’s springtime in Idaho when the snow melts, the flowers bloom, and campaign signs pop up along streets and in yards. Along with the signs come the regular incidents and accusations of vandalism, theft, and other such shenanigans.

Putting a sign in your yard or business not only signals your support of a particular candidate, but your opposition to others. It means taking a stand one way or another. For business owners especially, choosing to display a sign on your property is fraught with peril. Potential customers might be turned off by your support of one candidate or another, while others will actively patronize likeminded businesses. Candidates might also worry about having their signs too closely associated with another candidate who might represent a different political faction.

All this is to say that political signs can be a big deal, especially in a small community. This was exemplified recently in Emmett, a city of just over 8,000 people in Gem County.

Gem County Sheriff candidate Ronnie Knittel is challenging incumbent Sheriff Donnie Wunder. According to Knittel, he had placed a sign on a vacant lot near the intersection of State Route 16 and Washington Avenue, one of only three traffic lights in the city. On Monday, March 25, Knittel noticed that his sign had been taken down, along with another county candidate. Attached to the sign was a note indicating that the property owner had not given him permission to place it there:

According to Knittel, he contacted the D.L. Evans Bank, which owned the vacant lot. A corporate facilities manager informed him that he did indeed have permission to place his signs on the lot:

Knittel put his sign back up, but by Wednesday, March 27, they were once again removed. He called the facilities manager, who sent him an email informing him that his previous statement was incorrect, and that D.L. Evans Bank had given exclusive permission to other candidates to use the vacant lot:

Someone reached out to the Knittel campaign with a picture of a man in the process of removing the signs:

Numerous people have confirmed that the man in question is David Little, son of Gov. Brad Little and manager of the family livestock business. Little is also a precinct committeeman in District 14, of which I am secretary. I reached out to him for comment last week but have not received a response.

I also reached out to the facilities manager at D.L. Evans, who provided me a copy of the same email he sent to the Knittel campaign:

I would like to clarify some confusion regarding our private property in Emmett. 

David Little has our permission to put up political signs on our property as he has for over a decade.  He had already placed candidate signs in March prior to your request for signs, which I was not originally aware of.

We, as the private property owners, gave our consent to David to take some signs down that were in conflict with signs that were up on our property.

Based on all this, I do not believe anything illegal occurred. However, it is a bad look. If D.L. Evans Bank gave exclusive rights regarding political signs to the Little family and its allies, that is their right, but it was the mixed messages to the Knittel campaign that brought about this situation.

It also shows how contentious primary elections can be. Not only is the governor’s son directly working on behalf of one county sheriff candidate and against another, he is personally removing signs from vacant lots. I suppose there is something admirable about political figures who aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty.

Finally, consider what it says about the nature of political power. First, it already takes some measure of courage to run against an incumbent county sheriff. I’m not implying anything about Sheriff Wunder personally, just that it can feel perilous to directly oppose the chief law enforcement officer in your county.

Second, it makes me wonder if managers at D.L. Evans are worried about their relationship with Gov. Little and his allies. Even something as seemingly innocuous as allowing candidates to place signs on a vacant lot was apparently a bridge too far when it comes to publicly signaling your allegiance.

As contentious as political campaigns can be, it is a reminder that we still have it pretty good in Idaho. We don’t see political militias engaging each other in street fights and I haven’t heard of any bricks being thrown through windows. Let’s keep wars over campaign signs the worst part of campaigning.

Bonus note for paid subscribers below: