Support Free Republic, Folks!
Posted on 02/28/2018 10:59:30 AM PST by jazusamo
The Supreme Court took a dim view Wednesday of Minnesota’s law banning voters from wearing political apparel to vote on Election Day, with liberal justices questioning where to draw the line and conservatives wondering who got to decide what is political in the first place.
Minnesota said it has a legitimate state interest in ensuring decorum inside polling places and integrity during the election process.
But Andrew Cilek, a Minnesota voter, contends the law is overly broad and almost prevented him from voting in the 2010 election because he wore a “Tea Party Patriots” T-shirt and a button asking poll workers to ID him.
“This court has never upheld a prohibition this broad,” said J. David Breemer, the attorney for Mr. Cilek. “A lot of this material isn’t worn for advocacy, but for self-expression.”
Several justices questioned Mr. Breemer about where to draw a line, so that Minnesota’s law protects decorum and integrity at the ballot box while still giving individuals the right to express themselves under the First Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Will Antifa , Black Panther, KKK, or other logos will be allowed?
Why not? That is what the 1st Amendment protects. You would like it limited to just Politically Correct speech?
Pretty cut-and-dried First Amendment violation if you ask me.
Where to draw a line? What line? Why does a line need to be drawn?
This is free speech. If I see someone wearing dumblecrat attire, I am moved to pity, not outrage or anger...
P.S. So-called Hate Speech is blatantly unconstitutional.
Bump!
Not to mention, if some homie shows up at a polling place in da ‘hood, or “good” neighborhood for that matter with his “pants on the ground” would anyone dare take issue with that?
Agreed, and sure isn’t going to alter my vote.
Because someone wearing a T Shirt with their preferred Candidate’s name on it will make somebody else change their mind on who they planned to Vote for.
The Government is obviously looked upon as a Shepherd by the Sheeple.
Support Free Republic, Folks!
“How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?” he asked Mr. Rogan.
“I think that that could be viewed as political,” Mr. Rogan responded.
“How about the First Amendment?” Justice Alito again asked, which was greeted with laughter inside the courtroom.
“It would be allowed,” Mr. Rogan said.
If this exchange doesn't result in a decision to end the practice of censoring citizens at polling places, then the Republic is dead.
It could also be viewed as a reasonable restriction for a specific place (the polling location), at a specific time (during voting), with a specific purpose (to prevent electioneering). Many, if not most, states have similar laws regarding political expression at polling places during voting hours.
What a waste of time.
Amen, Justice Alito was dead bang on the mark.
Like I am supposed to see a Maxine Waters T-shirt and vote Demorat?? Come ON!!
Do you mean the billy club ‘logos’ they carry around?
I think you omitted the expectation that the restrictions must be "content neutral".
The conversation I quoted above is all the proof that one would need to see that the practice of censoring voters is not content neutral.
I mean, come on, folks!!
Can you imagine someone thinking “Oh! I see a I.M. Dumbjohn” T-Shirt on that guy over there! That changes my mind — I.M. gets my vote!”
Agreed — the laws that I’m familiar with relate only to candidate or proposition advocacy. Nothing contained in the constitution would run afoul of those restrictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.