View full size

PARSIPPANY —Wasim Khan, a frequent Democratic candidate in Republican Morris County, hasn't won any elections, but Wednesday he scored a big victory in the state Supreme Court.

The court ruled 5-1 that the homeowners’ association at his Parsippany townhouse complex violated his free-speech rights when it ordered him to remove campaign signs from his window and door during his run for township council in 2005.

"It’s a great victory for free speech," Khan said. "I’m so proud of our Supreme Court and our state. It’s incredible."

"Ideas cannot be fleshed out unless people have fearlessness that what they do will not have any repercussion," said Khan, 56, a physician who works in cancer research as a consultant to pharmaceutical companies.

The Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Association ordered Khan to remove his signs, telling him the complex’s rules allowed only "for sale" signs to be posted, according to court documents.

A judge in Superior Court found that the sign prohibition did not violate Khan’s free-speech rights, but Khan appealed. An appellate court ruled in his favor and yesterday’s ruling upheld the appeals court’s decision.

"Balancing the minimal interference with Mazdabrook’s private property interest against Khan’s free-speech right to post political signs on his own property, we conclude that the sign policy in question violates the free-speech clause of the State Constitution," the court ruled.

The court noted the U.S. Supreme Court has called residential signs "a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important" and that has "played an important part in political campaigns."

Frank Askin, director of the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic, who filed a brief supporting Khan on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision "a fantastic free-speech victory for the million-plus residents" who live in condominium or townhouse complexes governed by associations.

"Almost all of these associations have regulations banning signs," Askin said, "It’s a very important decision."

Khan’s attorney, Dana Wefer, another frequent, unsuccessful Democratic nominee in Morris County, said the decision is "very timely, given that this is an election year. The fact that everyone can put up signs is very reassuring."

Khan, who has run for office unsuccessfully as a Democrat three times, is giving it a fourth try this year as one of his party’s nominees for a seat on the Morris freeholder board. He lost bids for a state Senate seat in 2007 and 2011, after losing a 2005 Parsippany council race.

Although the court decision went in Khan’s favor, an attorney representing the Mazdabrook homeowners association and an attorney for the Community Associations Institute — New Jersey Chapter both found silver linings, pointing out that the ruling applies only in certain circumstances.

"It’s not a bad precedent," said Attorney Michael Karpoff, who filed a brief on behalf of the community associations group.

He said the decision makes it clear that only "unit owners" may post the signs, and it says only that they may post them in their windows or doors. Outsiders cannot come in and post signs, he noted.

nj.com-phone-app-pic3.jpg

STAY CONNECTED 24/7

Download our

free NJ.com mobile and tablet apps

to keep up with the latest New Jersey news, sports and entertainment.

However, Karpoff added, "I’m sure there are going to be attempts to make it broader" and "we may wind up with some other test cases."

Wefer, Khan’s attorney, agreed there are "still some gray areas," noting the court’s decision didn’t clarify, for example, whether lawn signs may be posted at condo complexes.

The Mazdabrook association attorney, Jeffrey Mandel, pointed out the decision said the association still has "the power to adopt reasonable time, place and manner restrictions" on signs.

But Mandel criticized the way Khan pursued the suit.

He said the litigation started when the homeowners association sued Khan over a rose vine it said grew too high on the side of his house. Khan, who withheld some homeowner association fees in protest, brought up the sign issue in a counterclaim.

"This case is really about a homeowner who failed to pay his dues," Mandel charged. "The free-speech issue was raised in retaliation."

Wefer said the Supreme Court decision involved only the free-speech issue, adding that Khan prevailed on the rose-vine issue in the appeals court.

She said Khan added the sign issue because he felt, "As long as we were already in this case, we should try to vindicate these rights."

For Khan, the disputes over the rose vine and the sign were intertwined.

"It was a self-expression issue," Khan said. "In my mind, it was part of the same process."

Related coverage:

• N.J. Supreme Court to rule on Parsippany man banned from displaying political signs at condo