SCOTUS to Hear New Case Challenging Minnesota’s Polling Place Apparel Rules

[Image via talkingpointsmemo]

Almost four years ago, I wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear a case challenging Minnesota’s rules regarding political attire in the polling place. Now, another variation of that case has made it back to the Court – which announced yesterday it will hear the appeal. Reuters has the story:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a conservative group’s free speech challenge to a Minnesota law prohibiting voters from wearing T-shirts or other apparel adorned with overtly political messages inside polling stations. [The case is Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 16-1435 (docket) – DMCj]

A group called the Minnesota Voters Alliance is appealing a lower court’s decision to uphold the law, which forbids political badges, buttons or other insignia inside polling places during primary or general elections. State election officials have interpreted the law as also barring campaign literature and material from groups with political views such as the conservative Tea Party movement or the liberal 

Violators are asked to cover up or remove offending items, but officials are instructed not to bar anyone from voting.

The Minnesota Voters Alliance, a St. Paul-based group that says it seeks to expose voter fraud, and several other organizations sued in 2010 claiming state officials turned polling places into “speech-free zones,” violating the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of freedom of speech.

Other states including Texas, New Jersey and Delaware have regulations similar to Minnesota‘s, according to court filings.

The group’s executive director, Andrew Cilek, was temporarily prevented from voting for wearing a T-shirt bearing the Tea Party logo and a button that stated, “Please I.D. Me.” The button was part of a campaign opposing the state’s lack of a photo identification requirement for voting, court papers said.

In rulings in 2013 and 2017, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis upheld the Minnesota restrictions, suggesting the law helps maintain “peace, order and decorum” at polling sites.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation conservative legal group, appealed to the Supreme Court saying a total ban on political speech unrelated to candidates or ballot initiatives is overly broad. The high court has allowed states to ban campaign materials and active vote solicitation at polling places, but not all political speech, the plaintiffs said.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case is a good sign for First Amendment rights,” foundation lawyer Wen Fa said in an email.

A spokesman for Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon declined to comment but state officials said in legal papers the law is neutral with respect to individuals’ viewpoints.

As the article suggests, this case will test the limits of rules against political attire, which are familiar and widely enforced across the country. Barring any huge surprise, explicitly campaign-related items will still be prohibited, but the Court will give guidance on the degree to which other political speech will be allowed on attire at the polls. As I’ve noted before, the rule of thumb is that the Court “doesn’t grant cert to affirm” (i.e. doesn’t usually take a case simply to agree with the ruling), which means there is a real possibility these rules could be changing in the foreseeable future. I’ll keep an eye on this case and let you know when the argument is scheduled and any further developments in the case. Stay tuned …

2 Comments on "SCOTUS to Hear New Case Challenging Minnesota’s Polling Place Apparel Rules"

  1. Attractive component of content. I just stumbled upon your site and in accession capital to
    claim that I acquire in fact loved account your blog posts.
    Anyway I’ll be subscribing in your augment or even I success you get admission to persistently quickly.

  2. Great website. A lot off useful inf here. I’m sending it
    to some pals ans additionally sharing inn delicious. And obviously, thanks on your sweat!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.