Oregon HOA Political Signs

Section 1: Overview — How political signs are regulated in Oregon HOAs

Oregon has no statute that protects a homeowner's political signs against a homeowners association, which places it among the states where the recorded governing documents, not state law, control what an owner may display.¹ This finding contradicts a claim circulating in commercial HOA-management guides that "ORS 94.757" bars associations from banning political signs during election periods; that section number doesn't exist in the Oregon Revised Statutes, and no political-sign provision appears anywhere in the Oregon Planned Community Act (ORS Chapter 94) or the Oregon Condominium Act (ORS Chapter 100).² The official ORS Chapter 94 section index runs directly from 94.733 to 94.760, with the 94.740 to 94.755 range having been repealed in 1999 and never replaced by a sign provision.¹ Because Oregon supplies no statutory sign right, a political-sign dispute in an Oregon planned community or condominium turns on the recorded declaration and rules, read as a private contract, subject to the association's general fine and enforcement limits under ORS 94.630 (planned communities) and ORS 100.405 (condominiums).³ The First Amendment doesn't apply, because an association is a private entity, not a state actor, and no Oregon appellate decision has applied the Oregon Constitution's free-expression clause to a private association's sign rules.⁴ The single Oregon statute that does address political signs, ORS 90.755, protects tenants in manufactured-dwelling and floating-home parks under landlord-tenant law, not owners in HOAs.⁵ The sections below dissect the statutory framework, the source-of-protection question, and the operational rules that follow.

Section 2: The legal framework for political signs

The statute that would protect political signs — and why Oregon has none

No Oregon statute protects political signs in homeowners associations. Verification against the official Oregon Revised Statutes runs direct: the ORS Chapter 94 section index published by the Oregon State Legislature contains no section numbered 94.757 and no section addressing signs of any kind.¹ The sections often miscited by commercial HOA guides govern entirely different subjects. ORS 94.762 governs electric vehicle charging stations.⁶ ORS 94.778 makes void and unenforceable any declaration or bylaw provision prohibiting solar-panel installation.⁷ ORS 94.779, titled "Unenforceability of certain requirements and restrictions," addresses irrigation requirements during drought, family child-care use of a lot, and portable cooling devices, and says nothing about signs.⁸ ORS 94.770 governs the rule against perpetuities and conflicts between a declaration and bylaws, not signs.⁹ The "ORS 94.757" citation appears to have originated in secondary HOA-marketing content and propagated across similar sites; it traces to no primary source.

The parallel condominium statute produces the same result. The Oregon Condominium Act (ORS Chapter 100) contains no political-sign provision.¹⁰ The condominium counterpart to the EV-charging section, ORS 100.627, governs charging stations, not signs, and marks the top of the 100.005 to 100.627 range.¹⁰ Condominiums therefore have no statutory sign right either. The one Oregon statute that uses the phrase "political signs," ORS 90.755, sits in the Residential Landlord and Tenant chapter and applies only to manufactured-dwelling and floating-home park tenants: subsection (2) provides that "The landlord shall allow the tenant to place political signs on or in a manufactured dwelling or floating home owned by the tenant or the space rented by the tenant. The size of the signs and the length of time for which the signs may be displayed are subject to the reasonable rules of the landlord."⁵ It doesn't reach owner-occupied lots in a planned community or units in a condominium. The retroactivity question that would apply to a genuine Planned Community Act provision — whether it reaches communities created before January 1, 2002 — is moot here, because there's no sign provision to apply. Solar (ORS 94.778), EV charging (ORS 94.762 and ORS 100.627), and U.S. flag display are separate topics, mentioned here only to distinguish them from the nonexistent political-sign right.

The First Amendment and the source of any restriction

The federal First Amendment limits government action, not private conduct. It provides that "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech," and it constrains only "state actors."¹¹ An Oregon homeowners association is a private entity created by a recorded declaration that operates as a contract among owners; it isn't a government body, so the First Amendment doesn't restrict an association's sign rules.⁴ The common homeowner assumption that the First Amendment guarantees a right to post yard signs inside an HOA is therefore incorrect as a matter of law. This distinguishes government sign regulation from association regulation: the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) and City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (2022) apply content-neutrality analysis to municipal sign codes and don't constrain private associations.¹² Oregon's free-expression clause, Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution, runs broad in Oregon jurisprudence, but it too is a limit on state action.¹³ No Oregon appellate decision has applied Article I, Section 8 to a private association's sign restrictions, so the Oregon Constitution isn't a source of any sign right against an HOA.⁴ The practical consequence: unlike in a protective-statute state, an Oregon owner has no statutory or constitutional lever to override a validly adopted covenant restricting signs; the only source of a sign right is the community's own governing documents.

How covenants control, and the limits on the association

Because no statute supersedes the declaration, the order of precedence runs from the recorded declaration and CC&Rs down through the bylaws to board-adopted rules, all read as a private contract.⁴ If a declaration prohibits or restricts signs, that restriction is generally enforceable in Oregon, which courts treat as a contract running with the land, presumed reasonable unless the challenger proves otherwise.¹⁴ An association may therefore ban political signs outright if its governing documents authorize it, may limit their size, number, placement, and duration, and may require that rules be validly adopted. What limits the association isn't a sign statute but the general constraints of the Planned Community Act and the governing documents themselves: a board may enforce only restrictions actually supported by the declaration, a board-adopted rule must trace to authority in the governing documents, and enforcement must stay consistent and even-handed to avoid a waiver or selective-enforcement defense.¹⁵ Content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral enforcement is the safer course: an association that permits signs for one candidate while removing signs for another invites a claim of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement, even without a sign statute in play. The operational takeaway: in Oregon, the decisive document is the recorded declaration, not the ORS.

Section 3: Operational rules for Oregon associations

A. What an association may do that a protective-statute state would forbid

An Oregon planned community may prohibit political signs outright where its declaration or validly adopted rules provide for it, because no ORS provision bars it; enforcement flows from the general powers in ORS 94.630 and the recorded governing documents (planned community, ORS Chapter 94).³ The same holds for condominiums under ORS Chapter 100, where the declaration and bylaws control and no sign statute limits them (condominium).¹⁰

B. What an association still may not do

An association may enforce only sign restrictions grounded in its governing documents; a board can't invent a sign prohibition by resolution if the declaration and bylaws supply no rulemaking authority for it (planned community, ORS Chapter 94).¹⁵ An association also shouldn't enforce sign rules selectively or by viewpoint, because inconsistent enforcement can waive the restriction and expose the board to a challenge under the governing documents (planned community and condominium).¹⁴

C. Enforcement and fining constraints

Before levying a fine for a sign violation, a planned-community board must give written notice and a chance to be heard, and the fine must rest on a schedule contained in, or an amendment delivered under, the declaration or bylaws (ORS 94.630(1)(n), planned community).³ The condominium parallel, ORS 100.405(4)(k), likewise permits reasonable fines only "after giving written notice and an opportunity to be heard" and only on a delivered schedule or board resolution (condominium).¹⁶ Before either side initiates litigation, the Planned Community Act's dispute-resolution framework applies, and self-help removal of a sign from an owner's lot runs legally risky where the sign sits on individually owned property rather than common area (planned community).³

D. Rule adoption and disclosure

Any size, placement, or duration rule for signs must be adopted consistently with the declaration and bylaws to be enforceable, and a fine schedule must be delivered or mailed to each lot or unit before it can support a fine (ORS 94.630, planned community; ORS 100.405, condominium).³ Because the sign right is entirely contractual, boards that want the ability to regulate signs should confirm the declaration grants that authority and should adopt any rules off-season, with clear notice to owners, rather than mid-election (planned community and condominium).¹⁶

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No Oregon bill enacted in the past 24 months amends any political-sign provision, because none exists to amend, and no recent bill creates one. The two most recent HOA-related enactments concern other subjects.

House Bill 3144 (2026) provides that new planned-community governing documents may not ban the siting of manufactured dwellings, prefabricated homes, or accessory dwelling units meeting applicable standards.

B. Recent rulings

No Oregon Court of Appeals or Oregon Supreme Court decision in the past 36 months addresses political-sign restrictions in an association. The most recent published association decision, Santoro v. Eagle Crest Estate Homesite Owners Assn., concerns architectural-committee review of garage-door height and interprets the CC&Rs as a contract; it doesn't address signs, but it illustrates the contract framework Oregon courts apply to association disputes.¹⁹

C. Active legislative debates

No active Oregon proposal would create a political-sign right in planned communities or condominiums as of this update. Any future bill on the subject would be tracked here.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Oregon isn't a protective-statute state for political signs, which sets it apart from the jurisdictions that expressly protect owners. California's Civil Code § 4710(a) provides that "The governing documents may not prohibit posting or displaying of noncommercial signs, posters, flags, or banners on or in a member's separate interest," allowing an association to restrict only signs over 9 square feet and flags or banners over 15 square feet.²⁰ Arizona's A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) states that an association "shall not prohibit the indoor or outdoor display of a political sign by an association member on that member's property," except outside a window running from 71 days before a primary election to 15 days after the general election; Maryland (Md. Code, Real Property §§ 11-111.2 and 11B-111.2) provides comparable protection.²¹ Nevada's NRS 116.325(1) provides that "The executive board shall not and the governing documents must not prohibit a unit's owner or an occupant of a unit from exhibiting one or more political signs," capped at 24 by 36 inches, and Montana's Mont. Code Ann. § 70-1-522(1) bars an association from prohibiting "the placement of a sign advocating the election, appointment, or defeat of a candidate for public office or the passage or defeat of a ballot issue," while permitting limits on size, location, and time.²² Oregon has no comparable provision; its Planned Community Act protects solar installations and EV charging but stays silent on signs, so the distinctive Oregon feature is the absence of a sign right where sibling homeowner protections exist.⁷ For multi-state operators, the practical implication is that a single sign policy can't be applied across a portfolio: in Oregon, the declaration controls and an outright ban can be lawful, whereas in the protective-statute states an identical ban would be void.

HOA Weekly's Oregon Political Signs coverage updates quarterly as the Legislature and Oregon courts act. Other federal frameworks — the FHA, ADA, FDCPA, SCRA, and the FCC's OTARD rule — apply to Oregon associations regardless of the state framework, but the federal First Amendment doesn't supply a basis to challenge an association's sign rules.

Footnotes

1. Oregon State Legislature, ORS Chapter 94 (Real Property Development), 2025 Edition section index (no section 94.757; index runs 94.733 to 94.760) ↩
2. Oregon State Legislature, ORS Chapter 100 (Condominiums) section index (no political-sign provision) ↩
3. Oregon State Legislature, ORS 94.630 (Powers of association), fines "after giving written notice and an opportunity to be heard" ↩
4. Oregon Judicial Department (no Oregon appellate decision applying Article I, Section 8, or the First Amendment, to a private association's sign rules; associations treated as private contract) ↩
5. Oregon State Legislature, ORS 90.755 (Right to speak on political issues; limitations; placement of political signs), applicable to manufactured-dwelling and floating-home park tenants ↩
6. Oregon State Legislature, ORS 94.762 (Electric vehicle charging stations) ↩
7. Oregon State Legislature, ORS 94.778 (Prohibition against installation of solar panels void and unenforceable) ↩
8. Oregon State Legislature, ORS 94.779 (Unenforceability of certain requirements and restrictions): irrigation, family child care, portable cooling devices ↩
9. Oregon State Legislature, ORS 94.770 (rule against perpetuities; conflict between declaration and bylaws) ↩
10. Oregon State Legislature, ORS Chapter 100 and ORS 100.627 (Electric vehicle charging stations), no political-sign provision ↩
11. U.S. Constitution, First Amendment (Constitution Annotated) ↩
12. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (municipal sign code) ↩
13. Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (free expression) ↩
14. Oregon Judicial Department published opinions (CC&Rs enforceable as contracts running with the land; presumed reasonable) ↩
15. Oregon State Legislature, ORS 94.630 (Powers of association) and ORS 94.635 (Association bylaws) ↩
16. Oregon State Legislature, ORS 100.405(4)(k) (Association of unit owners; fines after written notice and an opportunity to be heard) ↩
17. Oregon State Legislature, House Bill 3746 (2025 regular session), construction-defect repose and inspections ↩
18. Oregon State Legislature, House Bill 3144 (2026 regular session), manufactured dwellings and ADUs in new governing documents ↩
19. Santoro v. Eagle Crest Estate Homesite Owners Assn., Oregon Court of Appeals, decided May 20, 2026 (covenant enforcement as contract; not a sign case) ↩
20. California Civil Code § 4710 (noncommercial signs, posters, flags, banners; 9 sq ft / 15 sq ft limits) ↩
21. Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1808(C) (political signs; 71 days before primary to 15 days after general election); see also A.R.S. § 33-1261 (condominiums) and Md. Code, Real Property §§ 11-111.2, 11B-111.2 ↩
22. Nevada Revised Statutes § 116.325 (political signs; 24 by 36 inches); see also Mont. Code Ann. § 70-1-522 (signs advocating election or defeat of candidate or ballot issue) ↩