Supreme Court Considers Voter Fashion Sense

[PoliticAverse]

The Supreme Court grappled Wednesday on where to draw a line when it comes to voters who want to wear a “Make America Great Again” hat, a “#resist” T-shirt, a “Parkland Strong” button or other political messages when they cast ballots.

A century-old Minnesota law, similar to those in about nine other states, prohibits voters from wearing clothes with political messaging related to an election or ballot question. The state wants to keep the dignity, decorum and solemnity of polling places.

But voters challenged that ban as being too broad when it prohibits something like a shirt with a tea party slogan or “Black Lives Matter,” and argued that they don’t lose their First Amendment rights at the polling place door.

The justices will decide the case before the term ends in June, and it could affect laws in every state about what is appropriate attire at polling locations.

Read the rest at: https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/supreme-court-considers-voter-fashion-sense

[Turbineguy]

1. Dignity and Decorum?

I thought we elected trump for Crass and Unseemly.

[xmas74]

2. I thought it was considered electioneering,

No different than a candidate trying to solicit votes in front of the polling station.

[BigmanPigman]

3. That rule is in all states I thought.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Yes, but to different degrees as to what is prohiobited in each state.

Good listing of the rules in each state (.pdf): http://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2017-10/state-laws-polling-place-electioneering-2016.pdf

This case is about the limits of what exactly constitutes "electioneering" and what is just "protected free speech". Is it really ok to have a T-shirt with a quote from one part of the constitution on it but not another part?

[Fred Sanders]

4. If the ballot is secret what does a MAGA cap do to that? And decorum is actually a thing.

What next, SS armbands?

[Gothmog]

5. I have been an election judge and have volunteered for voter protection efforts

The ban on electioneering is fairly common. I have had someone go the restroom to turn their shirt inside out

In 2008, I was in my county's war room when I got a well written legal memo from the Obama voter protection team on the use of toilet plungers as a voting tool. http://halfempth.blogspot.com/2008/11/another-election-story-toilet-plungers.html

And in answer, the Obama Voter Protection team issued an advisory to Harris County Poll Watchers, Election Judges, and Voter Protection Attorneys. One of these was manning a phone at the Fort Bend Democrats headquarters on Election Day, and he showed me the advisory.

Now here’s the thing. It’s as serious as a heart attack, but when you read it, it sounds like it was meant to be a seriocomic construction.

You have to read it to understand what I am saying, so here it is in all it’s glory. (Click on the images to enlarge)

I just have to repeat it:

“Plungers represent support for a presidential candidate.”

This election for all its ups and downs, will go down in history as not only the historical event that saw the election of the first black president, but as an election that presented voters with just about the silliest electioneering ploys in US history.

You can read the memo by going to the link. The attorney who drafted that Memo is a former US Attorney

[PoliticAverse]

7. Would you have forced someone with a shirt quoting a part of the constitution to turn their shirt

inside out?

[Gothmog]

8. Not if there was no issue on the ballot with respect to such provision

In my case, the voter was wearing a shirt for a candidate on the ballot. That was easy and the voter did not object. The

case before the SCOTUS involved in part people with buttons advocating voter id and people wearing tea party shirts. Those are closer calls.

[PoliticAverse]

9. I don't see an easy, clear-cut solution to this issue other than the famous lines...

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

( From: Dewey McLAUGHLIN et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF FLORIDA: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/378/184 )

[Gothmog]

10. 2008 Dispute over Whether Toilet Plungers Represent Support for a Political Candidate

I forwarded the material from the 2008 election issue to Prof. Hasen and he used it. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97946

One of the issues which came out at the oral argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v,. Mansky is whether election officials can make a good faith effort to determine whether something is political and needs to be excluded from the polling place.

MR. ROGAN: So, Your Honor, the — I think the — the answer is that it has two components to it. It has to be understood as relating to electoral choices and it has to be well-known. So many of the examples that — that you talked about simply wouldn’t be well-known. It’s — it’s a reasonable observer sitting in the polling place on Election Day, after there’s been a campaign, after there’s been the issues that have been raised that are relevant to the election, deciding whether or not they believe that it’s reasonable to understand the message being -­

JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah. Well, that makes it worse, that it has to be — well, it’s not only does it have to be a political message, but it has to be well-known. What -­ what is well-known?

MR. ROGAN: Well, Your Honor, the political has a — has a plain meaning in our statute based on that it — it’s influencing elections. What I — all that I’m describing is that something that is political, for example, that is known to only a few people but is clearly political, is not going to be something that’s going to be reasonably understood by voters in the polling place.

A reader recalled a dispute over 1,000 toilet plungers distributed to bring to Texas polling places could be support for John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign (thanks to support by “Joe the Plumber.”)

The Obama campaign issued a memo http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/plunger-memo.pdf taking the position that “plungers represent support for a political candidate” and bringing them to the polling place was electioneering.