Supreme Court questions state law banning political apparel at ballot box

The Washington Times ^ | February 28, 2018 | Alex Swoyer

[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.

[Adder]

LOL

That seems to be the state’s position...

[Buckeye McFrog]

Many, if not most, states have similar laws regarding political expression at polling places during voting hours.

Does not mean they are Constitutional. I have a feeling if someone wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt to the polls was prosecuted the courts would find a way to toss those laws faster than you can say "RAAAAAAAACIST!"

[William Tell]

"the laws that I’m familiar with relate only to candidate or proposition advocacy. "

What is the compelling government interest in allowing such censorship? That is yet another element that Supreme Courts have examined. Just exactly what is at risk if a person wearing a shirt that supports a candidate appears at a voting place?

If a person chooses to have a candidate's name tattooed on his forehead does he forfeit his right to vote? Must he cover his face? Why not insist that people who can't tolerate seeing such advocacy avert their vision?

Perhaps we could have special voting precincts set up for those who can't tolerate free expression?

[libertylover]

Pretty cut-and-dried First Amendment violation if you ask me

I don't find it so clear because election signs (vote Smith for ...) are banned a certain distance (not very far) from polling places. Bit it's not as clear what a T-shirt could or could not say.

[Sacajaweau]

What if it says...Hi, My name is Boris.

[Hot Tabasco]

with his “pants on the ground” would anyone dare take issue with that?

Not me, even if he had HILLARY tattooed on his bare ass........ain't going to affect my vote.

[SMGFan]

IN NJ you cannot wear political shirt or buttons in polling location. Voters & poll workers.
Challengers wear official badges issued by county

[Ransomed]

The funny thing is that public opinion polls do swing after debates. Why? Who is actually going to change their vote because someone is a better debater than someone else as opposed to having a guiding political philosophy that more closely matches their own?

Freegards

[freedumb2003]

>>The funny thing is that public opinion polls do swing after debates. <<

But T-shirts rarely carry the day.