• Howard County
  • County Executive
  • Council District 1
  • Sheriff
  • State’s Attorney
  • Judge of the Orphans’ Court
  • Board of Education
• Maryland State Senate
  • District 9
  • Districts 12 and 13
• Maryland House of Delegates
  • District 9A
  • District 9B
  • District 12
  • District 13

Note that I’ve updated the Board of Education and House of Delegates District 12 posts to add pictures of signs for Allen Dyer and Eric Ebersole respectively.

I already selected winners (or in some cases, multiple winners) for signs in each race. Now it’s time for me to name winners in some special category, as well as an overall winner for all signs I saw.

The first category is for the best slogan. As I’ve mentioned previously, I’m not too hot on including campaign slogans on signs, and certainly there were a number of signs in this election where the slogan wasn’t doing much more than taking up space. However on Frank Mirabile’s sign the slogan “Time to Stand Our Ground” is both memorable and does something useful, namely letting the more partisan voters in a party primary know exactly where the candidate, uh, stands.

After seeing lots of signs I get tired of looking at conventional color schemes, either the American colors red, white, and blue or the Maryland colors red, white, black, and yellow, and I yearn for a change. I thus decided to have a “color my world” category, in which the winner is the large Nick Stewart sign and its orange on blue color scheme.

Some signs I thought were almost but not quite what they could be. In some cases (as, for example, with Ryan Frederic’s sign) I don’t know enough about graphic design to determine how the sign could best be improved. In other cases I thought just a relatively small change would do the trick. Hence we have the “most easily improved” category, with the winner being the small Warren Miller sign once the (in my opinion) superfluous design elements in the upper left and right corners have been removed (as I’ve done here).

Finally, the moment you’ve all been waiting for (or not, as the case may be): My pick for the best Howard County campaign sign of 2014. Those of you who’ve been reading this entire series will not be surprised at my pick, the large Dario Broccolino sign. This sign made me go “wow” the first time I saw it, and I haven’t seen another sign to top it since then.

With that I’m concluding this series, at least for now. I did collect pictures of signs for the gubernatorial race and the race for Attorney General, but I just ran out of energy to post and critique them; maybe later. Also, if I have time and the inclination I’ll post closer to the general election if there are any new signs that didn’t show up in the primary.

Finally, some thanks: First, thanks to all of you who’ve come to this blog to read these posts; I appreciate your attention, and hope your time was worth it. A further thanks to those of you who stopped to comment, who sent me pictures of signs, or who pointed out where I could find them; I love hearing from readers, and thank you for taking the time to contact me. And last but not at all least, thanks to all the candidates who put themselves out in the public eye and ran for election to public office. As I wrote before, you had to endure people commenting on your public appearances, counting up your Twitter and Facebook followers, and making videos about your direct mail pieces. And thanks to me, not even your signs are safe from criticism. Thank you for bearing it all in good grace, and being willing to serve the citizens of Howard County and Maryland.

This is the end of my one-a-day posts; I now return you to your regular (or I should say in my case, irregular) programming. I’m not sure when I’ll post next, or what I’ll post about, but if you’re interested in what more I might have to say please take a moment to click the “Subscribe via email” button or add my RSS feed to your newsreader. Till later!

Walter Carson (wcarson@columbiaunion.net) - 2014-06-25 12:18

Well done! Always enjoy your take on signs and local politics. Best wishes. WEC Sent from my iPhone

Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate, along with my comments, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed.

I’ve previously written about the problems inherent in using all four colors of the Maryland flag in a single sign. This sign handles those problems as well as they can be handled, mainly by avoiding the red text on yellow background found in signs from Trent Kittleman, Frank Mirabile, and others. Instead this sign carefully restricts itself to the exact color juxtapositions found the Maryland flag: black with yellow, and red with white. More specifically, it restricts itself to what I think are the best color combinations: black text on a yellow background and white text on a red background.

Some other things to note about this sign: The typeface is clean and readable; it’s bold enough to stand out but light enough to allow adequate space between the letters. Using both upper and lower case in “Kittleman” means that the text isn’t quite as wide as it would be if it were in all upper case, and thus it can fit better on the sign. (“Kittleman” has nine letters, just like “Grabowski” and “Markovitz”; compare this sign to the Grabowski and Markovitz signs I discussed in my previous post.) The red banner-like design element in the upper right corner is well-done; note that on the left side of the element the yellow background seems to form an arrowhead pointing to the “Proven Independent Leader” slogan. The slogan itself points diagonally upward to the right to make the sign more dynamic (the same technique used on the Dario Broccolino sign). Finally, note that the horizontal line separating “Kittleman” from “Howard County Executive” is not just red on yellow (a poor combination) but is both red and white in order to maintain the preferred color juxtapositions I mentioned above.

The one thing that bothered me about this sign is that the “Howard County Executive” seems a bit thin. When I was walking around the neighborhood I had some trouble making that text out when viewing the sign from a distance.

The design of the large version of the Allan Kittleman sign is the same as that of the smaller sign, except that “Howard County Executive” is now one line rather than two, is in a slightly bolder typeface, and (at least to my eyes) is more readable.

Like Courtney Watson’s 2010 sign, this sign uses white text on a blue background to good effect: The text is very readable (especially “County Executive”), and there’s a good visual progression from oblique serif type and all caps in “COURTNEY” to the bold san serif typeface of “WATSON” to the sans serif mixed case of “County Executive.”

The one potentially problematic part of this sign is the design element in the upper left corner. Typical non-text elements in signs are either totally non-representational (e.g., lines or borders) or are common symbols that are immediately recognizable (e.g., stars, apples, flag-derived banners). This element is clearly intended to represent something, but it’s not immediately clear what that something is. My personal interpretation is that it’s symbolic of Howard County’s rural heritage: (yellow) sun above (white) road above (green) field; however I’m not sure the average person would see it the same way as I do. Nevertheless the colors are very nice and brighten up what would otherwise be a plain and unadorned sign. (Note also that subtle green line that separates “WATSON” and “County Executive” and echoes the green in the upper left conner.)

Now for the tough part: Which sign to vote for? This contest is certainly not as lopsided as we saw four years ago with Trent Kittleman’s sign vs. Ken Ulman’s sign; these signs are much more closely matched. Both sign designs are professional and effective but neither is perfect, for reasons explained above. On Kittleman’s side I think this the first black/yellow/red/white sign design I actually find attractive; on Watson’s side I really like the sign but consider it just a step down from the 2010 sign. In the end I’m going to take the coward’s way out and call this a toss-up.

This concludes my look at the campaign signs for Howard County local races in 2014. In my next post I’ll wrap things up and name some overall winners in various categories, including my choice for the best Howard County campaign sign of 2014.

Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate, along with my comments, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed. Note that I could not find any signs for David Blake Melton.

Dave Grabowski, like Lisa Markovitz and Dario Broccolino, has the problem of having a long name that’s difficult to fit on a sign; unlike Renée McGuirk-Spence, hyphenating it is not an option. Unlike the Dario Broccolino sign, which provided more room for the name by displaying it on the diagonal, this Grabowski sign adopts the simple strategy of displaying the name horizontally in a serif typeface that is pretty readable. Overall the sign is clean and well-designed, with no extraneous elements or slogans. The background color isn’t one of my favorites, but that’s just a matter of taste; certainly it provides a good contrast to the text.

I like the color on this sign; it’s a change from the typical colors and is not so pastel that it causes contrast problems. However I think the typeface used for “Markovitz” is just a tad too bold, and that does affect readability a bit. Compare this sign to the Grabowski sign above; both names are the same length but I think you’d better be able to recognize “Grabowski” from a distance. Also, I’m not sure the “Vote ‘14” design element in the upper right corner adds anything.

This is a solid sign: No extraneous clutter, typeface that’s bold but still readable, and a good background color.

This is almost the same design as the small Wendy Royalty sign, but it’s missing the white border found on that sign. To me that’s to its detriment: I think the white border works well to frame the main part of the design. Without the border all that red in the background gets to be a bit much. The design is cropped really tight as well; notice how close the “R” and “y” in “Royalty” are to the edge of the sign.

A nice minimal sign that highlights the candidate’s (full) name and position sought without trying to cram anything else in. The color and typeface look good as well.

This is an interesting sign. Kevin Forrest Schmidt couples this sign with his regular sign, for example putting the “RUN FORREST RUN” sign next to or in front of his other sign. It’s a cute gimmick to lend some personality to the signs, although I’m not sure if it’s worth printing double the number of signs that normally would be required.

Jon Weinstein likes yellow and white text on blue backgrounds; his 2010 campaign signs used the same color scheme. This one is interesting because it’s a variant of the design on his other small sign. I don’t really like the stars intermixed with dots; it seems a bit busy. However I do like the typefaces on this sign.

The different typeface and the switch to mixed upper and lower case on “Weinstein” make this sign a bit more legible. However I think the typeface on this sign is a bit lacking in personality compared to the previous sign.

This sign is just a taller version of the small sign, with “Howard County Council” spread out over three lines to add height. I think that’s a mistake, as it makes the design look too skinny. I think it would have been better to drop the “Howard,” put “County Council” on one line, and reduce the height just a tad.

Which sign should go on to the general election? There are no clunkers in this race, but overall I think I like the small Wendy Royalty sign the best. However the large Wendy Royalty sign serves as a warning that a good design can be significantly compromised by seemingly minor changes (in this case removing the border and cropping more tightly).

In my next post I’ll look at the marquee Howard County race, and the last local race for which I was able to find signs, namely the contest for Howard County Executive.

Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate, along with my comments, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed. Thanks to Corey Andrews for sending in a picture of his sign. I couldn’t find any signs for Zaneb Beams and Dan Furman. I did see one sign for Allen Dyer, but couldn’t stop to take a picture; by the time I came back later that day the sign was gone.

This is a good minimal sign with a nice clean typeface and a dark blue background to provide excellent contrast and legibility.

The core of this sign is good: Nice typeface, readable, stands out. However the top and bottom of this sign succumb to the syndrome of treating a campaign sign like a direct mail piece.

This is a well-designed sign as far as it goes: The typeface is great, the candidate’s name is prominently featured (even though it takes most of the sign to do so), and the apple design element is really well-done. Unfortunately the pastel color scheme just doesn’t work well in the great outdoors; it gets washed out in bright sunlight and the sign becomes difficult to read.

I don’t understand why this sign uses an American flag; it’s a Board of Education race, not a national election. Other than that the text elements are OK as far as they go—but note that ditching the flag motif would have allowed splitting the candidate’s name onto two lines and making the text significantly larger.

A nice sign. The main typeface used for “BUTLER” stands out well, and the other typeface complements it well. (Note that the typeface used for “Olga” is an oblique version of that used for “Board of Education.” The thin white line above “Board of Education” is a nice touch too; it breaks up what otherwise might be a too-heavy red background.

A good solid sign that’s quite readable. The red, white, and blue color scheme, though quite attractive, doesn’t exactly say “Board of Education” to me.

The background apple makes the “CH” in “FRENCH” almost unreadable on this sign from a distance. Also, why “Return” and not “Re-Elect”? Because it sounds more “nonpartisan”?

As I’ve mentioned previously, apples are a cliché in the context of Board of Education campaign signs. The strategy of this sign is that if you’re going to use a cliché, own the cliché. That together with minimal text and good complementary typefaces makes for a good sign. My only nitpick is with the stars in the upper right, which make that area of the sign look a bit busy.

The sun adds visual interest to this sign, its yellow color complements the green background and text colors, and the childish look of the drawing evokes education without resorting to the usual clichés.

My daughter writes: “An awesome sign. The bow-tie makes it look totes adorbs! Even though they are soooo 2012, it’s still a nice touch.” I write: Why a (trademarked!) bow-tie that’s inspired by the Maryland flag? Apparently because Mike Smith wears one; see for example this Baltimore Sun story. I guess it’s a change from the usual apples, but to be honest I’ve been looking at this sign for over a month now and just now cracked the code on it. (For a while I wasn’t sure it was even supposed to be a bow-tie.) In any case, whether the bow-tie is a good idea or not, including it in the middle of the sign means that the candidate’s name is relegated to a small space at the top of the sign. That’s definitely not a good idea in my book.

This sign goes heavy on the apples, but oddly enough where one might expect to find yet another one, i.e., replacing the “o” in Vaillancourt, instead there’s a large globe and three small children. This is another sign where I had to puzzle out what was going on: The globe isn’t that visible from a distance, so you have to get up close to see what’s going on. Again, this might be OK on a direct mail piece, but with a sign the viewer will likely be driving by at 20 mph or more and there’s not enough time to notice and interpret sign elements that aren’t boldly drawn.

This is a tough race to call an overall sign winner. The Olga Butler sign had no missteps, but it also didn’t have anything in the design that specifically evoked a Board of Education race; ditto for the Allen Dyer sign. The Leslie Kornreich sign did do that effectively, and was definitely the best of the “apple signs”; the Christine O’Connor offered an alternative way to evoke education and childhood that I thought worked well. Finally, the underlying design of the Maureen Evans Arthurs sign was really excellent, and if the colors had been a bit bolder I would have likely named it the winner.

In my next post I’ll look at the signs for candidates in the Howard County Council race in District 1.

UPDATE: Corrected the number of candidates going on to the general election; thanks go to Corey Andrews for the correction.

UPDATE 2: Finally found a sign for Allen Dyer and updated the post to add it.

Urban Bushwoman - 2014-06-23 02:31

I like the Smith sign. :)

hecker - 2014-06-23 03:50

Thanks for stopping by to comment! Once I figured out the bow-tie thing, I think it was a clever gimmick for personal branding. But I still think the name is too small…

Corey Andrews (cacoreya@yahoo.com) - 2014-06-23 16:19

Good post. One thing to note… eight candidates will make it through the primary, not four.

hecker - 2014-06-23 17:25

D’oh! I was confusing the number of open seats with the number of people going on to the general. Thanks for catching this! I’ve updated the post.

Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate, along with my comments, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed. Note that I couldn’t find any signs for Jody Venkatesan.

Hey, haven’t I seen this sign before? Yes, it’s Team 13 once again, with Guy Guzzone apparently not having any signs just for himself. As I wrote before, this sign is effective but otherwise lacks interest.

Another sign we’ve seen before, as Ed Kasemeyer piggybacks on Terri Hill’s sign design. Again I’ve noted the problems I have with this sign, including the somewhat overly idiosyncratic typeface and the botched banner.

A simple sign that gets straight to the point and drives it home without any missteps along the way: candidate’s last name, position sought, and web site address for those wanting to know more.

The final tally? I’m going to give this one to Jesse Pippy, first for actually having a sign of his own and second for having it be a simple but nice one.

In my next post I’ll come back to Howard County local races and evaluate signs for the Board of Education candidates.

Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate, along with my comments, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed.

This is a good sign, especially for using only two colors. The “BATES” is large and readable in a clear serif typeface, and the smaller “Gail” in a script typeface adds a nice informal, almost personal, note. The integration of the Maryland flag-inspired banner is also done very well; note that the banner is outlined to prevent confusion between the sign background and the white parts of the banner.

This sign does some things quite well, and one thing not so well. The good news: The sans serif typeface used for “FREDERIC” is bold and readable; it really sells the sign. The serif typeface used for the smaller “RYAN” is also a good choice and complements the main typeface well; having the “R” be slightly larger than the “YAN” is also a nice touch. Finally, the red star to the right of “RYAN” both balances the composition and makes it more dynamic—note that the star is slightly off-center to the right, which adds visual interest. Overall, it’s an uncluttered and powerful design.

Now for the bad news: Printing “STATE SENATOR” and “DISTRICT 9” in red ink on a dark blue background makes them almost unreadable, particular if you’re driving by rather than walking.

The main thing I don’t like about this sign is the “VOTE DANIEL” banner at the top. It looks just a tad odd, and I feel like it’s undersized relative to the rest of the sign. Otherwise the sign is competent and unexceptionable.

The results: This sign contest is a good example of “might have been.” The Ryan Frederic sign design is really strong, but I think it was sabotaged by the color choice on the lower text. I understand the desire to echo the red star at the top of the sign with red at the bottom of the sign and thus tie the thole design together. However ultimately this is a campaign sign, not a print ad or direct mail piece, and I think a campaign sign has to meet more stringent criteria for readability than designs in other media. This stumble on the part of the Ryan Frederic sign opens the way up for the Gail Bates sign to claim victory.

In my next post I’ll evaluate signs for State Senate candidates in District 12 and 13.

Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate , along with my comments, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed. (I’m doing Team 13 first because “Atterbeary” starts with an “A.” Also, I couldn’t find signs for Eaton and Yates.)

The Team 13 sign seems to be a repeat of its sign from 2010 (from what I can recall). Is it effective? Yes: The sign reinforces that this is a slate, and tells you who’s part of it. Is it attractive? Only if you like bare-vanilla minimalism. I will say though that I think in some ways doing red text on a white background is superior to doing white text on a red background.

Another basic sign that gets the job done but doesn’t hold much interest from a design perspective.

I like the orange background color on this, as well as the white outlining around the black letters in “SIDDIQUI,” which makes the name stand out nicely. This sign also has three more subtle characteristics: First, and most trivial, the orange background and black text with white outline remind one of the Baltimore Orioles (for example, this version of their uniform); if this isn’t simply a coincidence then it’s certainly appropriate for a candidate running in the Baltimore suburbs, especially in a district that also takes in part of Baltimore County.

Second, omitting the first name means that this sign could have been used equally well by either Nayab Siddiqui or Janet Siddiqui, prior to the “great switcheroo” that saw Janet withdraw from the District 13 race at the last minute and be replaced by Nayab. (Of course, if either Janet or Nayab Siddiqui had been accepted into Team 13 then presumably they would have been on the standard Team 13 signs and if they wanted to they could have saved money and not done their own signs.) And in any case it allows Nayab to get the benefit of any positive feelings people have toward Janet.

Finally, if I recall correctly, on every other sign I’ve seen for House of Delegates races the word “Delegate” appears on the bottom of the sign, below the candidate’s name. On Nayab Siddiqui’s sign, and only on his sign, it appears at the top, so that a casual observer would read the sign as “Delegate Siddiqui.” (The word “For” appears at the beginning, but it’s in fairly small letters and is east to miss.) Again, this may be a coincidence, just based on the way the design evolved, but it can also be read as a way to compensate for being left off of Team 13: Encourage less-informed voters to think that you’ve already been elected and are running as an incumbent.

Another basic sign that gets the job done. I don’t like the way the white stripe at the bottom transitions into the Maryland flag-based banner, but that may just be me being picky.

As with District 12 it’s not difficult to pick a winner here. If nothing else Nayab Siddiqui’s sign evinces an attempt to put some thought into the sign’s design above and beyond the minimum required, and it also has fun subliminal cleverness whether intended or not.

In my next post I’ll evaluate signs for Maryland State Senate candidates in District 9.

Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate, along with my comments, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed. I couldn’t find signs for Jay Fred Cohen, Adam Sachs, or Rick Martel.

The state of Maryland seems strangely balanced on the “Y” in “BAILEY” in this sign. I think it might have been better to reduce the size of the image slightly, or just ditch the map of Maryland entirely and use something else. (The crooked shape of Maryland doesn’t lend itself easily to good sign designs.)

This sign is readable and serviceable, but not more than that. Gordon Bull has the benefit of having a short last name, which means it can be featured prominently, but next to the giant “BULL” the small “GORDON” looks out of place and unbalances the composition.

This sign is very reminiscent of the sign Eric Wargotz used for his 2010 US Senate campaign, even down to the descender of the “g” interrupting the horizontal stripe separating the top and bottom halves of the sign. That’s not a bad thing, as I thought Wargotz’s sign would have been quite nice with some changes. Dongarra’s sign has those changes, most notably simplifying the horizontal stripe and moving the position and web site address to the bottom of the sign, and is all the better for them. (I’m not sure the star to the right of “Rebecca” was really necessary, but it does provide a bit of balance since “Rebecca” is shifted to the left a bit.)

Interestingly enough, this large Rebecca Dongarra sign follows the opposite strategy from Warren Miller’s and Tom Coale’s large signs, by not using the extra space to add the web address. Instead the web address is on the small sign. I think leaving off the web site address increases the impact of what was already a very good sign.

The name is very readable on this sign (a function of the typeface and using mixed upper and lower case), and the red, green, and blue colors work well together. However putting the “Democrat for Delegate - District 12” text in green impairs its readability, and together with the multiple occurrences of “Teacher” makes this sign almost look like one in the Board of Education race. Also, as with the Brian Bailey sign I’m not too big on including a map of Maryland; it makes the sign very crowded.

While this sign gets good marks for readability of Michael Gisriel’s last name, it’s just too busy. In particular it has 14 stars, which is about 12 or 13 stars too many. It also has the same problem as Bob Flanagan’s sign, namely poor readability of black text printed on a red background.

At only 10 stars rather than 14 this large version of Michael Gisriel’s sign is an improvement on the small sign.

The typeface for this sign is somewhat quirky and I think might impede readability a bit. However the more serious problem with this sign is the design element based on the Maryland flag: The left half is OK but in the right half the white background of the banner blends with the white background of the sign, so it no longer looks like a banner.

On this larger version of Terri Hill’s sign (advertising Ed Kasemeyer, who is unopposed in the primary) the text is more readable but the flag-based design element has the exact same problem as on the small sign. If anything the problem is worse because the banner is supposed to transition into the red horizontal strip, and the transition just looks messy.

A good straightforward sign, with good readability for the candidate’s name. I could do without the map of Maryland, which looks out of place, and I’m not sure what the slogan accomplishes other than telling us how to pronounce Joe Hooe’s last name.

The best thing about this sign is the last name: Clarence Lam is blessed with the shortest name of any candidate in this race, or for that matter any other Howard County race, and this sign pounds it into your skull with big bold yellow letters. I don’t really love the purple background color, but in general this is an effective sign.

This large Clarence Lam sign is the exact same design as his small sign, but it suffers in comparison by being so severely cropped on both sides.

From the candidate with the shortest last name we move to the candidate with the longest one. However Renée McGuirk-Spence is blessed with a hyphenated name with two almost equal-length parts, which means it can be neatly split across two lines. The result is a sign with a straightforward design, nothing fancy but it works well enough.

This sign has an unusual and interesting color combination. It’s a little strange though how “NICK” appears to be much more prominent than “STEWART.” The typeface is interesting too, but I think it’s a bit thin, which again impairs readability of the candidate’s last name.

Now for the results: Even though this race has a lot more candidates and thus a lot more signs than the District 9A and 9B races, it’s much easier for me to pick a winner. I think Rebecca Dongarra’s signs are the class of the field in terms of design; although several of the other signs have their good points, nothing else really comes close as far as I’m concerned.

In my next post I’ll evaluate signs for House of Delegates candidates in District 13.

UPDATE: I finally found a sign for Eric Ebersole, and updated the post to add it.

Patricia DiCarlo (patdicarlo13@gmail.com) - 2014-06-21 14:09

Siddiqui’s sign is the only one that gives a party affiliation. Is this legal?

hecker - 2014-06-21 17:50

Thanks for stopping by to comment! To answer your question: There are a number of other candidates other than Nayab Siddiqui who include party affiliation on their signs, including Eric Bouchat in the Maryland House of Delegates race in District 9A, and Brian Bailey in the House of Delegates race in District 12. It’s perfectly legal. (I should also add that putting only the candidate’s last name on a sign is also perfectly legal, as long as the last name matches the last name on the candidate’s filing papers.)

Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate, along with my comments, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed. Full disclosure: I publicly endorsed Tom Coale in this race almost a year ago (my, how time flies!), but will try not to let that affect my aesthetic judgment.

This sign’s design is uncluttered, I like the typeface, and it’s pretty readable from a distance. The star design fits in well and adds some interest, but the red portion of the design doesn’t show up well against the blue background. This is especially true of the thin red line dividing “TOM COALE” from “FOR DELEGATE,” which is almost invisible even up close. (In fact, I hadn’t noticed the line myself until I was writing this post.)

The large version of the sign, like the large Warren Miller sign, adds the web site address, and the arrangement of “TOM” and ”COALE” is modified to better fit the larger size. (The red elements of the design seem to show up better as well, but that may just be due to the particular lighting conditions in which I took the photograph.)

This simple minimal sign is like the Ward Morrow sign in my last post: There’s nothing wrong with it, and it’s attractive as far as it goes, but it also doesn’t stand out as particularly interesting.

I don’t have a picture that shows Bob Flanagan’s sign from his 2010 county council campaign in its entirety, but I believe this sign is basically the same design, even including the stalks of wheat on the left side. Unfortunately the stalks of wheat are almost invisible as printed in black ink on a red background; ditto for the “Ellicott City” at the bottom. Other than that the typeface is clean and legible; it’s very similar to the typeface on Tom Coale’s signs.

This large version of the Flanagan sign dispenses with the “Ellicott City” at the bottom, which I think is a definite improvement. It still has the black on red wheat stalks and horizontal line, but the larger size makes these elements more visible and lets them contribute more to the overall effect of the design.

My major problem with this sign is the busyness of the added design elements, in particular the star. The shape and positioning of those elements also reminded me somewhat of the star and crescent symbol associated with Islam—an odd association for a Republican candidate. As for the rest of the design, the serif typeface works well and the sign is pretty readable overall.

There are no clunkers in this collection of signs, and no breakout winners either. I think the best of the lot are Tom Coale’s small sign and Bob Flanagan’s large sign; they’re both attractive and show an effort to add some visual interest, and their flaws—such as they are—are not that consequential. However those who prefer a “plain vanilla” sign (one that’s attractive, free of obvious flaws, but somewhat bland) may like Rich Corkran’s sign better.

Finally, although it’s not a sign (and hence is not eligible in this particular “election”) I couldn’t resist highlighting this Tom Coale car magnet. Clearly it’s not a straightforward campaign item, but it promotes the candidate’s theme of being an advocate for Ellicott City: If you put this on your car, you’re advertising not only that you love Ellicott City, but that Tom Coale does too. And its attractiveness (due to an excellent Maryland flag-based design) means that more people will be inclined to put it on their cars and keep it there. I lost one of these in a car wash and was so upset I begged Tom Coale’s field director Kirsten Coombs to give me a replacement.

That’s all for now. In my next post I’ll evaluate signs (a lot of signs) for House of Delegates candidates in District 12.

UPDATE: After I originally posted this I came across the large version of Bob Flanagan’s sign, and in the interest of fairness and completeness I decided to update the post to include it, especially since I consider it one of the best signs in the group.

Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate, along with my comments, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed.

In my opinion this sign goes overboard in its attempt to let the voters know exactly what kind of candidate Eric Bouchat is (and thus who he’s trying to appeal to). In fact, there’s so much other text that the actual position he’s running for gets relegated to a small space in the upper left. Design-wise the letters in “BOUCHAT” seem too blocky and close together, while the letters in “LIMITED” look to be spaced too widely compared to those in “GOVERNMENT,” presumably in an attempt to balance the two words in terms of length. Finally, the letters in “LIBERTARIAN CONSTITUTIONALIST” are so small I doubt they’d be readable except very close up.

This is the only diamond-shaped sign I’ve seen in the campaign, and there are reasons for why that’s the case: First, the shape doesn’t provide a lot of room for text. The very top and bottom of the sign can be used only for non-text elements (like the Maryland flag-inspired design here); even in areas closer to the center the text has to be relatively small in order to fit. Second, the support for the sign has to run through the middle of the sign, which means that the other side of the sign can’t be used.

This is an unusual red-white-and-blue design. I’ll give it credit for trying to do something out of the ordinary, but I don’t think the red triangle works well; in particular I think it reduces legibility a bit for the “R” and “S” in “CARSON.” I’m curious as to what the sign would look like with just a blue background in the upper half.

Like other GOP candidates Trent Kittleman does a little extra to try to stand out, in this case including a picture of herself. I’m only guessing here, but perhaps this was done both to highlight her role as the only female candidate in the race (from either party) and to help reduce potential confusion between herself and Allan Kittleman.

The sign’s color scheme, based on the four colors of the Maryland flag, is the same as Trent Kittleman’s sign in 2010 when she ran for Howard County Executive; in fact, except for the picture the design itself is almost identical. As I wrote at the time, it’s very tough to make this color scheme look good in a sign, especially if the sign uses red text on a yellow background or vice versa—the two colors are too similar, especially when (as in this sign) the red color ends up looking more orangish.

This is a good sign: The “Lorton” is very visible from a distance, due to the use of mixed upper and lower case (which tends to be more readable than all upper case), the large serif typeface, and the black outline around the letters, which tends to make them stand out from the background. The white on black “STATE DELEGATE” looks good as well, and the design element in the upper righthand corner adds interest and does a good job of balancing the “Kyle.” My only real criticism of the sign is that the red background looks somewhat dull and flat.

Note that unlike all the other Republican candidates’ signs, the Kyle Lorton sign doesn’t attempt to highlight his GOP/conservative/Tea Party bona fides; I think of it more as a “general election sign” (which assumes, of course, that Lorton will make it through the primary).

In this election Warren Miller continues his tradition of having good-looking examples of red-white-and-blue sign designs. In this version the blue is very dark, almost black, and makes an excellent contrast with the bright red of the top part. (At least I think the bottom color is blue; it’s really hard to tell for sure, even in close-up.) The typefaces are quite elegant and legible, with a nice rhythm in the text top to bottom: First “Warren” in mixed case, then “MILLER” in upper case in the same typeface, then “Conservative” in mixed case echoing “Warren,” albeit with a different and italic typeface, and then finally “STATE DELEGATE” in upper case in the main typeface, echoing “Miller.”

The only things I don’t like about this sign are the design elements in the upper corners, which I think add clutter and are not essential. The GOP elephant at the upper left I think is redundant given the highlighting of Miller as a conservative, and the flag at the upper right seems to be there just to balance the elephant in the design. I think the sign would look better and be more legible overall if those two elements were removed.

The most obvious difference in the larger Warren Miller sign is the addition of the “www.miller4delegate.com” web address. However this addition forced more subtle differences: In order to accommodate the address, the height of the bottom part of the sign was increased. The top part of the sign was also increased in height, presumably to keep the two parts in balance. Unfortunately this increase in height had a downside: Since the word “Conservative” is now further above the white border separating the red background from the blue background, and has more of the red background color surrounding it, optically it appears to be a bit smaller than it does in the small sign, even though the size of the text relative to “MILLER” is exactly the same.

I therefore think this sign would look better if the word “Conservative” were made slightly larger (say by 25% or so) and moved slightly lower down, so that it were equidistant between “MILLER” and the white horizontal divider. And as with the smaller sign, I think the design elements in the upper corners are not necessary.

This is an unfortunate example of a sign that is trying to be a campaign manifesto—unfortunate because the type is so small and the text so lengthy that even someone walking by rather than driving is unlikely to be able to easily read it all. Their task isn’t made any easier by the use of orange/red type on a yellow background, as with Trent Kittleman’s sign. Finally, I don’t like the Maryland flag-derived design elements to the left and right of “Maryland State Delegate 9A”; I think they overwhelm the text and make it harder to read.

This larger version of the previous Frank Mirabile sign improves on the previous sign in two ways. First, the “State Delegate 9A” is larger in size and uses a bolder typeface than “Maryland State Delegate 9A” on the previous sign, and matches the size of the flag-derived design elements. I still think those elements could be ditched, but at least the text can hold its own against them. Second, the campaign manifesto has been replaced by the pithier and more effective “Time to Stand Our Ground.” The message is further reinforced by the GOP elephant and “Don’t Tread On Me” snake in the lower right, although as on the Warren Miller signs I think those are superfluous and could have been removed.

This is a good solid sign, in the green and white color scheme used by many Democratic candidates. There’s not a whole lot else for me to say about it—there’s nothing wrong with the sign, and at the same time nothing that truly makes it stand out from the crowd.

s This combined sign for the two Democratic candidates nicely echoes the individual candidates’ signs: The typeface used for the names and the blue background to “Carson” hark back to Wally Carson’s sign, and the typeface used for “Elect” and “State Delegates 9A” and the green background to “Morrow” remind one of Ward Morrow’s sign.

Overall it’s a lively and visually interesting sign. My only gripe is that the word “Elect” seems out of balance with the rest of the sign; maybe it would have been better to leave it off?

I know this is a two-member district, but I find it hard to pick just two winners. My top three picks are the Kyle Lorton sign, the small Warren Miller sign, and the Carson/Morrow sign. I go back and forth on my ranking of the three; however I will say that if the (in my opinion) superfluous design elements were removed from the small Warren Miller sign then it would be my top pick—I just really like the colors and typefaces used in Warren Miller’s signs.

In my next post I’ll evaluate signs for House of Delegates candidates in District 9B.

Walter Carson (wcarson@columbiaunion.net) - 2014-06-15 15:25

Well done! Thank you for sharing your opinion and insights. Best wishes. WEC Sent from my iPhone

hecker - 2014-06-15 16:47

Thanks for stopping by to comment. I did early voting yesterday at the Miller Branch library, and fortunately was able to get pictures of all the signs I was previously missing, including yours and Ward Morrow’s.

So on to the judging, according to the criteria I’ve previously discussed. Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate, along with my comments in my role as amateur design critic.

This sign uses the by-now-familiar black on yellow scheme based on the Maryland flag. It’s an OK sign: It’s fairly legible, the typeface used for the name livens the sign up a bit, the central divider with a star works well, putting “Shari” to the right rather than the center makes the overall composition more interesting, and the “scales of justice” image in the upper left serves to balance out the “Shari.” I take points away for not putting the apostrophe on “Orphans’.”

This is a good example of a effective minimal sign design: Only as much text as needed, a single and simple sans serif typeface (the “for” appears to be simply in an oblique version of the main typeface), no extraneous design elements, and only a single color other than white. I have only one criticism: When viewed from a distance the “D” and “O” in “DODD” look somewhat similar, so that the name looks like “OOOO” or “DDDD.” A different typeface might have helped this, or alternatively using both upper and lower case (“Dodd” vs. “DODD”).

This sign has a nice purple background color (a break from the usual yellow or red), a good balance between the white foreground and purple background, and an interesting serif typeface. As with the Chase sign, I take points away for not spelling “Orphans’” properly.

This sign does a nice job of highlighting the candidate’s last name and the position being sought; it also highlights the fact that she’s an incumbent, which many voters might not know given that this is a relatively obscure courthouse race. I’m less enthusiastic about the burgundy color used for the text, and I’m not a big fan of the script used for “Re-Elect Judge.”

Of these four I like the Dodd and Miller signs the best. The other two are not bad signs, I just don’t think their designs stand out as being particularly attractive. (Note that in the context of a campaign sign “attractive” is not necessarily the same as “effective”; I’m judging signs primarily on aesthetic grounds.)

This concludes my look at signs for the courthouse races, at least for the primary. In my next post I’ll switch to the races for the Maryland state legislature, starting with the signs for candidates for the Maryland House of Delegates, District 9A.

This is the large Broccolino sign; as noted above the small sign is identical to this. I have to admit that when I first saw this I immediately thought, “What a great sign!” My eye was first drawn to the dramatic upward slant of the text in the design. Then I noticed the cleverness of the color scheme: First white on black, then yellow on black, then a dramatic switch to black on white, and then back to yellow on black again, so that no two lines of text are in the same color.

Besides being a good use of three of the four Maryland flag colors, the switching back and forth increases visual interest, and together with the upward slant of the design avoids the problem of visual “flatness” I previously identified in the large John Newnan sign for the Howard County Sheriff race. The white border, although relatively thin, serves to tie together the overall design and keep the black background from being overwhelming; again, compare this to the large John Newnan sign, which also had a black background but no border.

The sans serif typeface looks really good too; it’s an excellent choice for this design. Note also that the typeface is slightly oblique with the vertical strokes of the letters exactly parallel to the sides of the sign, which prevents the letters from looking crooked and adds further energy to the upward slant of the design; it’s little touches like these that turn a good sign into a great sign.

The sign is not perfect: The “State’s Attorney - Proven Leadership” tagline is somewhat small and not that readable at a distance, even in the large sign. Also, the “Democrat” in the lower right, which is also not that readable from a distance, seems to be there mainly to balance the composition.² But overall I can’t fault the design choices.

Rich Gibson’s sign is also a solid professional piece of work. (There are no slackers or amateurs in this race as far as signs are concerned.) The sans serif typeface for “RICH GIBSON” and “HOWARD COUNTY STATE’S ATTORNEY” looks good and is bold while remaining readable. The script typeface used for “Elect” and “for” is a nice contrast with the main font; it’s not as readable, but that’s not important since those words are mainly there to add visual interest. A darker orange is a good choice for the contrasting color; it’s a nice break from yellow (which would be the typical choice) and orange text on blue is significantly more readable than red on blue. The two vertical orange bars on both sides nicely highlight the main body of the sign.

Overall the sign is just a tad cluttered, but every visual element plays a role in the design, even the stylized Howard County map in the upper right corner, which balances the “Elect” in the upper left and the “for” in the lower left. Unlike the Broccolino sign, the Gibson sign features consecutive lines of text in the same color (“RICH” and “GIBSON” in white, and then “HOWARD COUNTY” and “STATE’S ATTORNEY” in orange). However I don’t see that as a problem, since if “HOWARD COUNTY” were omitted the “STATE’S ATTORNEY” line would be out of balance with the two lines of text above it.

My vote: I’ll give the Rich Gibson sign credit for a good performance, one that might have put it on top in another race. However unfortunately for it it’s up against the Dario Broccolino sign, one that I’d easily put in the top three for best Howard County campaign signs of 2014 thus far. I wouldn’t call this a landslide victory, but overall this is a clear win for the Broccolino sign.

This concludes my look at signs for the courthouse races. (I did see one sign for a candidate for Judge of the Orphans’ Court; if I see more signs for that race I’ll do a post then.) In my next post I’ll switch to the races for the Maryland state legislature, starting with the signs for candidates for the Maryland House of Delegates, District 9A.

UPDATE: Added a bit about the small Broccolino sign, and refined my comments on the large sign.

Both Fitzgerald and Newnan have multiple types of signs; I think I got pictures of all of Newnan’s but may have missed one of Fitzgerald’s. Here are the signs, in alphabetical order by candidate and from small to large for each candidate, along with my comments.

This is the basic Fitzgerald sign in its most minimal form. Fitzgerald is using the same black on yellow color scheme (two of the four colors from the Maryland flag) as last election; in fact this sign and others appear to be unchanged from 2010. This is a good sign in my opinion, simple, legible, and uncluttered in its design. The typeface is nothing fancy but works well, and I like the white border.

This sign is a departure from the normal Fitzgerald sign template in its use of a blue and white color scheme and a different typeface. It’s a nice attempt to do something different but I don’t think it really works, mainly because the star intended to be the “O” in “POLICE” doesn’t actually look that much like an “O.” As a result I tend to read the sign as saying “PLICE FOR FITZGERALD.”

This sign is essentially the small sign above blown up to a large size and with a “Police Endorsed” sticker covering the six-pointed sheriff’s star. Possibly because it lacks the white border, this sign seems more “oppressive” than the corresponding small sign, and the blue on white sticker lightens the look of the sign and adds some visual interest.

This sign is also based on the small sign writ large, this time with the “Endorsed by …” tagline at the top right. As with the previous sign, I think the sign is improved by adding an additional element beyond those on the small sign.

Turining to John Newnan, there’s a lot to like about this small sign. The name is nicely legible, and the oblique typeface used for the word “VOTE” adds some dynamism to the sign. A nice subtle touch is the use of a thin red outline around both “VOTE” and the candidate’s name; there’s also a red drop shadow (not an outline) used for the phrase “SHERIFF OF HOWARD COUNTY.” The red makes the words pop out from the black background and further livens up the sign. Together with the black background and the yellow and white type the inclusion of a touch of red also makes this sign a textbook example of how to use all four colors of the Maryland flag in a very effective way.

My one criticism of this sign is that the phrase “SHERIFF OF HOWARD COUNTY” is pretty small, and the tagline below it is smaller still; I doubt either of these is that readable from a car moving fast. I think I understand why the full position was used: Since the word “SHERIFF” is as long as “NEWNAN,” if it were made smaller on the sign then there would be blank space on either side of the word that would make the composition of the sign look a bit unbalanced, unless some design elements were placed at either side of it. However I still think the tagline could have been omitted.

This large sign uses the same basic color scheme of yellow and white type on black background as in the small sign, but lacks the red highlighting (possibly for reasons of cost?). Unfortunately leaving the red out means that the yellow and white type looks somewhat flat and lifeless against the black background. The endorsement line is also rather long and hence less readable, and the use of a seven-pointed rather than six-pointed star is somewhat jarring. (Maybe Newnan avoided using the six-pointed star for some sort of obscure legal reason? But he did use it in the sign below, albeit not conspicuously.)

I’ll be up front here: I am not a big fan of signs that show a picture of the candidate; I think that’s better reserved for a web site or direct mail piece. There’s a lot going on in this sign: the candidate photo, the (barely visible) sheriff’s star next to the candidate, not one but two pointers to online information, the red and white stripes, and yet another slogan. I think it’s all too much of a muchness.

My vote: I really like the design choices on the small Newnan sign. It would probably be my pick if it had been more minimal, e.g., including just “SHERIFF” rather than “SHERIFF OF HOWARD COUNTY,” and omitting the tagline at the bottom. However given those shortcomings, at least in this election I’ll instead vote for the tried-and-true choice, namely the basic Fitzgerald sign in its small version.

Tune in next time, when I’ll look at the signs in the Howard County State’s Attorney race.

Kemp Freund (kemp.freund@verizon.net) - 2014-06-26 22:08

Frank - on Newnan’s signs you commented on the use of the 7 point star. The HCSO actually wears a 7 point star but an inverted version of the one on Newnan’s sign (which is generic clip art). Fitzgerald used a clip art 6 point star on his signs, probably because his printer had that artwork and most people don’t really pay attention to the star in the first place. But if you look at the Sheriff’s marked cars, their patch and the actual badge you will see a gold 7 point star with the Maryland seal in the center. BTW - did you ever see anything from the mystery Republican candidate? I am wondering if he intends to run on name recognition alone and hope that the public thinks that they are voting for the retiring Police Chief.

hecker - 2014-06-26 22:32

Thanks for stopping by to comment, and for the detailed explanation! I never did see any signs for the GOP side of this race. Maybe closer to the general election?

Cherie Beck (cheriebeck@gmail.com) - 2014-07-10 12:40

Just looking around Frank…noticed the comment above. Says it’s by me. What a surprise, since I didn’t write it, Someone must have used my email address as a generic author.

hecker - 2014-07-27 18:32

Cherie: I think I cleaned up the comment in question.

I should say up front that it’s not clear at all that campaign signs are actually effective in persuading to vote for one candidate rather than another. As a 2012 Slate article notes, some research has shown that non-specific campaign signs urging people to vote (though not for a particular candidate) can be effective, but that says nothing about candidate-specific signs. On the other hand, a Vanderbilt University study seems to indicate that signs can be effective in promoting candidates in races in which they are a large number of candidates and voters have little information about them. There are some political consultants who feel strongly that yard signs are a waste of money, and others who are happy to advise you on which types of signs are more effective.

In any case, I think campaign signs lend a festive air to election years, and from a purely aesthetic standpoint offer interesting examples of both good and bad graphic design. As a amateur design critic here’s what I personally look for in a campaign sign:

Legibility. Whatever other attributes a sign has, at a minimum it has to be readable. There’s nothing more frustrating than driving down a road at 30 or 40 miles per hour, seeing a small campaign sign, and not being able to figure out which candidate it’s for.

Information. Assuming that the primary purpose of a sign is to promote name recognition, then obviously it needs to include the candidate’s name (full name or just last name) and the office they’re seeking, Anything else—party affiliation, slogans, icons and images, candidate picture, etc.—is arguably superfluous.

Color. Some people have specific recommendations on sign colors. Others tend toward traditional colors, like the American flag colors red, white, and/or blue, or the Maryland flag colors black, red, white (silver), and yellow (gold). Many signs use other colors to good effect, and they get bonus points from me for doing that. My main comments here are that some color combinations (like red and blue) impair readability, and that using the Maryland flag colors in an effective way can be hard if you use more than two colors at a time.

Typography. Beyond being readable, I like to see sign typefaces that are clean, dynamic, elegant, and work well together (if multiple typefaces are being used) and in the context of the sign.

Other design elements. Some signs have additional graphic elements, for example stars, small flags, etc. I judge these on how well they work in the overall context of the sign: do they enhance the design, or detract from it?

To illustrate the above criteria, here are some examples of signs I liked from the 2010 campaigns (click on the images to see them full-size). Note that I didn’t get pictures of all 2010 signs, so don’t consider this a true “best of 2010” list.

I thought this sign for Bob Ballinger was an excellent sign for a non-partisan Board of Education campaign. It gets the basics right in terms of legibility and conveying the essential information. The green background color and the typeface resemble chalk writing on a blackboard and thus highlight the theme of education in a nice subtle way that avoids the design clichés common in Board of Education signs (for example, apples).

Again, like all my favorite signs this sign for Byron Macfarlane (for Register of Wills) is quite readable and highlights the essential information. The blue background color is pleasing to the eye and not overbearing (as some darker blues can be), while the yellow element in the upper left-hand corner adds visual interest in a nice contrast of colors. The typeface is quite elegant and has an air of formality about it that is appropriate for a courthouse election, especially for a position involving estates and trusts—it’s reminiscent of a typeface that a bank or financial advisor might use.

I thought this sign for Gail Bates and Warren Miller (for the Maryland House of Delegates) did several things well: It did a good job of highlighting the “team” aspect of their campaign. It made excellent use of the traditional red, white, and blue colors, which with its implications of patriotism is a favorite color combination for many Republican candidates. The typeface is bold but still readable. Finally, the design element invoking the Maryland flag nicely filled in the overall design.

This was my overall favorite of the signs I saw in 2010: It was pared down to only the essential candidate information (last name and position sought, with “Howard County” implied rather than explicitly stated on the latter). The colors were nice and complemented each other well. The typeface was somewhat unconventional (i.e., not a over-used serif typeface like Times Roman or sans serif typeface like Helvetica) but was quite legible and conveyed a feeling of dynamism. Finally, the design element of a stalk of wheat enhanced the design and evoked the rural roots of Howard County.

That concludes the preliminaries. In my next post I’ll start looking at the 2014 signs; unlike last time I’ll do this race by race and (where possible and appropriate) pick an overall winner in each.

In my travels around Howard County I’ve been photographing campaign signs when and where I could. However I’m still missing signs for several candidates for local races and would like to include them if possible. Here are the candidates for whom I do not have sign photos ; note that I have not included candidates who are unopposed in the primary election (like Calvin Ball) or even in the general election (like Mary Kay Sigaty):

• Howard County Council, District 1
  • David Melton
• Howard County Council, District 2
  • Reg Avery
  • Calvin Ball
  • Ralph Colavita
• Howard County Council, District 3
  • Jen Terrasa
• Howard County Council, District 4
  • Mary Kay Sigaty
• Howard County Council, District 5
  • Greg Fox
  • Alan Schneider
• Howard County Board of Education
  • Maureen Arthurs (have pictures)
  • Zaneb Beams
  • Allen Dyer
  • Sandra French
  • Dan Furman
  • Christine O’Connor
• Maryland House of Delegates, District 9A
  • Eric Bouchat (have pictures)
  • Trent Kittleman (have a picture)
• Maryland House of Delegates, District 9B
  • Rich Corkran (have pictures)
• Maryland House of Delegates, District 12
  • Brian Bailey (have pictures)
  • Gordon Bull
  • Jay Cohen
  • Eric Ebersole (got pictures)
  • Joe Hooe
  • Renee McGuirk-Spence (have pictures)
  • Rick Martel
  • Adam Sachs
• Maryland House of Delegates, District 13
  • Danny Eaton
  • Jimmy Williams
  • Chris Yates
• Judge of the Orphans’ Court
  • Shari Lynne Chase (have pictures)
  • Anne Dodd (have pictures)
  • Ellen Harrison
  • Nicole Bormel Miller (have pictures)
  • Emma Travis-Howard
  • Leslie Smith Turner (have pictures)
• Sheriff
  • John McMahon

If you happen to see signs for any of these people in your neighborhood and it’s safe for you to stop and take a picture on your smartphone or camera, please feel free to send the picture(s) to me at frank@frankhecker.com; I’ll gladly give you a photo credit if you request it.

UPDATE: I mistakenly had Ellen Flynn Giles as a candidate this year for Board of Education. Thanks to Joan Lancos for setting me straight.

UPDATE 2: I have updated the post to mark cases where I now have pictures of signs. I still do not have signs for the remaining candidates.

Joan Lancos (joanlancos@yahoo.com) - 2014-06-02 12:59

Ellen Giles is not a candidate for BOE at this time. She was re-elected in 2012 to a four year term.

hecker - 2014-06-02 13:08

D’oh! Brain freeze there, I will update the post. Thanks, Joan!