PROVIDENCE — The City of Pawtucket late Wednesday agreed to pause enforcement of an ordinance banning the posting of political signs on residential properties more than 30 days before an election.

The city's move came in response to a lawsuit brought by two Democratic primary candidates. The state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city; Kenneth McGill, registrar of the Board of Canvassers; and Zoning Director John Hanley on behalf of candidates Cherie Cruz and Jennifer Stewart, arguing that the regulation is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

City Solicitor Frank J. Milos Jr. issued a statement late Wednesday.

“After conferring with the Interlocal Trust’s attorney, the City has opted to voluntarily suspend the enforcement of the ordinance referenced in the suit which would allow signs to be placed immediately. The City Council will be reviewing the Ordinance moving forward to ensure that it is in compliance with existing case law,"  Milos said.

Cruz is among the Democratic candidates running to replace Rep. Carlos Tobon in District 58. Tobon opted to not seek reelection following a WPRI investigation into his business dealings. Stewart is challenging Rep. Jean Philippe Barros in the Democratic primary for House District 59. Both will face off with other candidates in the primary election on Sept. 13.

Rhode Island Primary Voting Guide: Everything you need to know to get your ballot

According to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court, Stewart placed more than 30 signs in supporters’ yards in early July before receiving a call from McGill informing her of the ordinance. He advised her he would refer the matter to zoning officials, “who could issue fines to the individuals who had signs in their yards before the date he identified” if they were not removed.

Cruz, too, learned of the ordinance indirectly after she began distributing her signs to supporters. She then called city officials, who confirmed that people who erect her signs more than 30 days before the election could be fined.

They argue that while the city allows near-unfettered governmental speech to be posted, it restricts other kinds of speech, including political, through the ordinance. They are asking the court to bar the city from enforcing the ordinance, arguing it is unconstitutional and violates their First Amendment rights.

Elections:2 Republican state senators fined for campaign-finance violations

Further, they say, they are disadvantaged by a lack of name recognition as unendorsed candidates whose campaigns are not well-financed. They say they rely on inexpensive yard signs as a means to generate exposure and name recognition.

The lawsuit argues that “residential signs are a form of unique expression entitled to the highest degree of protection” under the First Amendment and a “cheap and convenient form of communication … by which people of modest means may become involved in political campaigns and show their support for a candidate or cause.” 

A hearing on their request for a temporary restraining order is set for Thursday at 10 a.m. before U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy.

“For me, this case is about democracy. I want people in Pawtucket to know there is an upcoming Democratic primary election and that I am a candidate to represent our community,” Stewart said in a statement. “My supporters want their neighbors to know about the election and to encourage them to consider my candidacy. Our campaign was feeling a sense of momentum before we were warned about violating this ordinance. Taking the signs down stifled the voice of my supporters and created an obstacle for having a more competitive election.”

Cruz took a similar view. 

Family ties:Candidates by same name in neighboring districts? That's no typo – they're father and son

“The fact that such a blatantly unconstitutional ordinance in Pawtucket exists to limit residents’ rights of free speech is very saddening. It ignores a basic right to freely express our political, electoral views and preferences,” Cruz said. 

“We cannot on one hand, call on all of our citizens to be active participants in our democracy and then on the other create arbitrary timelines for that same participation — it’s hypocritical and wrong,” she continued.

The ACLU contends that it previously notified the city about the “unconstitutional” ordinance without results.

“Political speech is at the core of the First Amendment.  Decades of court decisions with which the City should be familiar make it abundantly clear that limiting political speech to one month before an election simply cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. This ordinance is especially troubling since political sign restrictions generally have the effect of favoring incumbents over challengers, as one of the major obstacles for any challenger in a political campaign is name recognition,” Richard A. Sinapi, who is representing the ACLU, said in a statement.