Why Were the Police Involved? Political Signs, Police Resources and Questions Columbus Deserves Answered

Something about this situation just doesn’t sit right.

A controversy over political campaign signs reportedly placed in a public right of way has somehow escalated into Columbus police officers showing up at a citizen’s home.

My question is simple:

Why?

Why was the Columbus Police Department involved in what appears, at its core, to be a dispute involving campaign signs allegedly placed on public property?

Isn’t that normally a matter for the city department responsible for code enforcement, inspections or right-of-way regulations?

That is not an accusation. It is a legitimate question about how our city uses its law enforcement resources — and the citizens of Columbus deserve an answer.

Political signs are nothing new. Every election season, we see them on street corners, near intersections, along roadways and around roundabouts. There are rules governing where signs can and cannot be placed.

If a campaign sign is illegally placed in a public right of way, then enforce the ordinance. Remove it. Cite whoever is responsible if the law provides for it.

But when did that become a matter requiring police officers to go to somebody’s house? I thought the Department of Inspections and Codes was the organization tasked with enforcing the ordinance.

WHO MADE THAT DECISION?

That is where this story becomes bigger than a campaign sign. Who called the police? Who decided officers should be dispatched? What alleged crime was being investigated? Was the matter first referred to the appropriate city department?And, most importantly, would the Columbus Police Department respond the same way if an ordinary citizen called about an ordinary sign?

Those questions matter because law enforcement cannot even appear to be used as an extension of somebody’s political campaign.

Police officers have an enormously important job. They respond to shootings, domestic violence, robberies, burglaries, traffic crashes and countless other calls for service. Their time — paid for by taxpayers — is valuable.

That is why citizens have every right to ask whether sending officers to a private residence over the removal of political signs from a public right of way was the proper use of police resources.

THE BODY CAMERA VIDEO RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION

The situation becomes even more troubling when police body-camera footage from the encounter finds its way onto social media and becomes part of the political spectacle.

Body cameras exist primarily to document law enforcement encounters, increase accountability and preserve evidence. They should not become campaign content or a tool for publicly humiliating citizens.

If body-camera footage was lawfully obtained through Georgia’s public records process, that is one issue. But the public still deserves to know how it was obtained, who requested it and whether the police department followed its normal policies in releasing it. Because appearances matter.

When police officers are dispatched over political signs and footage of that encounter subsequently becomes ammunition in a political dispute, citizens are entitled to ask whether government resources are being pulled into partisan politics.

AND THEN THERE ARE THE AIRTAGS

There is another unusual detail that deserves clarification: The signs reportedly contained Apple AirTags or similar tracking devices. Again, that does not automatically prove wrongdoing by anyone. But it certainly raises questions.

Why were campaign signs being electronically tracked? Was this a routine practice for all campaign signs? Were the tracking devices installed because signs had previously disappeared? Or were particular signs deliberately being monitored to identify whoever removed them?

Those facts should be established before anybody starts labeling citizens criminals or assigning motives.

If the signs were actually located in a public right of way where they were prohibited, that fact matters, too. Columbus officials should clearly explain the applicable ordinance, who is legally authorized to remove such signs and what normally happens when someone reports one missing.

Facts should settle this matter — not Facebook.

POLITICAL CONNECTIONS MAKE TRANSPARENCY EVEN MORE IMPORTANT

There are also questions circulating about past political relationships between individuals involved in this controversy and Columbus Police Chief Stoney Mathis.

Those questions should not be treated as established facts without documentation. But if the chief or other senior police officials have had a documented political, financial or campaign relationship with someone involved, transparency becomes even more important.

The public deserves to know whether Chief Mathis had any involvement whatsoever in the decision to dispatch officers. If he did not, say so.

If this was simply an officer responding under ordinary departmental policy, release the policy and explain it. The quickest way to stop speculation is transparency.

POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT NEVER JUSTIFIES THREATS

There is an even more serious issue developing around this controversy. Reports of social media comments against a candidates supporter invoking a “short rope” and a “tall tree” cannot simply be dismissed as political trash talk. That language carries an unmistakable and horrific historical meaning in America, particularly in the South.

Nobody — Republican, Democrat, independent, candidate, campaign worker or private citizen — should be threatened, intimidated or subjected to language suggesting violence because of a political disagreement.

If credible threats have been made against anyone involved, that is where law enforcement absolutely belongs. Investigate the threat. Determine whether a crime occurred. Protect people if there is a legitimate danger. Political disagreement is protected speech. Threatening violence is an entirely different matter.

We cannot preach law and order when it benefits our side and suddenly forget about civility and public safety when the target is somebody with whom we disagree.

THIS ISN’T ABOUT A CAMPAIGN SIGN

I have no interest in helping anyone manufacture publicity out of a campaign-sign controversy. This is bigger than the candidate. It is bigger than the sign. It is about government. It is about police resources. It is about consistency. And it is about public trust.

The Columbus Police Department should answer a few straightforward questions: What policy justified sending officers to the residence? What crime was initially alleged? Who authorized or approved the response? Would CPD respond the same way to any Columbus citizen making the same complaint? And did anyone with a political relationship to the parties involved influence the decision?

There may be perfectly reasonable answers. If so, give them. Because the citizens of Columbus should never have to wonder whether calling the police gets you one level of service while knowing the right people gets you another.

Our police department belongs to all of us. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not candidates. Not political contributors. Not friends of people in high places. All of us. And whenever the badge, taxpayer-funded police resources and political campaigns intersect, transparency isn't optional. It's necessary.