I am against this bill which increases the civil penalties for placing signs or advertisements within highway limits, particularly when considering the impact on billboards and election signs. Here's why: Freedom of Speech: Increasing penalties for signage might infringe on First Amendment rights, especially for political speech through election signs, which receive heightened protection. This echoes concerns in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) where the Court protected political speech, suggesting that such regulations could be seen as an attempt to suppress or limit expression. Disproportionate Impact on Political Campaigns: Election signs are crucial for political campaigns, especially for local candidates or grassroots movements with limited budgets. A higher penalty could disproportionately affect these groups, potentially limiting political discourse, similar to the issues of campaign finance in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). Economic Burden on Small Businesses: For businesses, particularly small ones, using billboards or roadside signs is a cost-effective advertising method. Doubling the penalty from $100 to $250 could impose a significant financial strain, akin to the economic impact concerns in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) regarding financial burdens. Enforcement Inequity: The bill's structure, with a higher penalty for the first sign and a lower one for identical signs within a 100-yard radius, might lead to inconsistent enforcement, where individuals or entities might be unfairly targeted based on the location or number of signs, reflecting enforcement concerns similar to Whren v. United States (1996). Public Awareness: Election signs play a vital role in public awareness and voter education. Increasing the penalty might lead to fewer signs, reducing visibility and potentially voter turnout, which could impact democratic processes, as discussed in the context of political communication in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995). Administrative Overreach: The bill's approach to penalizing signage could be seen as an administrative overreach, where the state is excessively regulating private expression in public spaces, paralleling concerns about government overreach in Lochner v. New York (1905). Cost of Removal: While the bill allows for the collection of removal costs in addition to penalties, this could lead to a scenario where the state profits from the enforcement, raising issues of fairness and potential abuse of power, similar to the critique of excessive fines in Timbs v. Indiana (2019). I oppose this legislation due to its potential to infringe on freedom of speech, disproportionately impact political campaigns and small businesses, create enforcement inequities, reduce public political awareness, represent administrative overreach, and the problematic aspect of cost recovery for sign removal, advocating for a balanced approach that respects free expression while maintaining necessary public order.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, The members and supporters of the Virginia Animal Owners Alliance ask that you strongly oppose House Bill 2143. The Amish community in Virginia is being targeted by this bill. This legislation is unnecessary, because the Amish already have brakes, lights, a mirror, slow moving triangle, and reflective tape on their buggies. This is an UNSAFE proposal in requiring each buggy be fitted with "A horn or warning device audible under normal conditions at a distance of not less than 200 feet." This language reveals a lack of knowledge in regards to horse behavior and would create a potentially dangerous situation for both the horse and the passengers. Unlike the patron, the Department of Motor Vehicles understands that horses are prey animals that would easily be startled by a horn. The DMV Driver's Manual clearly states in regards to horse-drawn buggies, "Slow down and don’t use the horn." (https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/sites/default/files/forms/dmv39c.pdf) If this bill passes, it would require the Amish to retrain their horses to the use of a variety of horns. It takes a very special type of horse to remain calm in such a situation. They would have to have nerves of steel like a police horse. Many common buggy horses would not be able to overcome their flight instinct and would have to be replaced. However, this is not a quick or simple task. It would also impose a financial burden on each Amish family. If the legislature insists on requiring the installation of a horn, they should cover the costs for each family to have their horse trained (and potentially replaced) as well as their travel expenses as they would be forced to rely on the English to provide them with transportation during this time. Even if the legislature agreed to all of this, however, there would still remain serious questions about enforcement. The Amish are just trying to quietly live their lives adhering to their religious beliefs. They are not harming anyone and should be left alone. It is a step too far to dictate that the government inspect the Amish buggy, but that is where we are heading if this bill passes into law. Please protect the Amish community in Virginia and strongly oppose this bill. Sincerely, Heidi Crosky Virginia Animal Owners Alliance

I am against this bill which singles out Amish communities and farmers by imposing specific equipment requirements on animal-drawn vehicles. Here's why: Unfair Targeting: By focusing on animal-drawn vehicles, this legislation unfairly targets Amish and traditional farming communities who rely on these modes of transport, potentially infringing on their way of life, which could be seen as discriminatory, echoing concerns about equal protection under the law from Loving v. Virginia (1967). Economic Burden: The requirement for specialized equipment like brake systems, specific types of tires, headlamps, reflectors, hazard lights, rearview mirrors, and horns imposes significant financial costs on individuals who might not have the means to comply, similar to economic hardship concerns in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973). Cultural Insensitivity: This bill shows a lack of cultural sensitivity towards the Amish and other communities that use animal-drawn vehicles, disregarding their religious and cultural practices, much like the cultural respect issues in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) regarding Amish education. Practicality: Many of these requirements might not be practical or feasible for traditional animal-drawn vehicles, which are not designed for modern highway equipment, leading to compliance issues, akin to the practical application of laws discussed in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995). Safety vs. Tradition: While safety is a concern, this bill might overstep by imposing modern vehicle standards on traditional transport without considering alternative safety measures that respect the simplicity of these vehicles, reflecting a balance issue similar to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) where tradition and modernity were weighed. Regulatory Overreach: This legislation represents a form of regulatory overreach by dictating specific equipment for a niche group, potentially violating the principle of minimal government intrusion into personal and community practices, as seen in Lochner v. New York (1905). Freedom of Religion: For the Amish, this could be seen as an infringement on their religious freedom, as their lifestyle choices are deeply tied to their faith, similar to the religious freedom considerations in Sherbert v. Verner (1963). I oppose this legislation due to its unfair targeting, economic burden on rural and traditional communities, cultural insensitivity, impracticality, the imbalance between safety and tradition, regulatory overreach, and potential infringement on religious freedoms, advocating for a more nuanced approach that respects cultural practices while addressing safety concerns.