Justices: OK to wear political apparel to polls
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Minnesota law that prohibits voters from wearing T-shirts, hats and buttons expressing political views at polling places.
In a cautious 7-2 decision, the court acknowledged the value of decorum and solemn deliberation as voters prepare to cast their ballots. But Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Minnesota’s law was not “capable of reasoned application.”
Minnesota’s law, similar to ones in about nine other states, is quite broad. It says that “a political badge, political button or other political insignia may not be worn at or about a polling place on primary or Election Day.”
As enforced by election officials, the law bans even general political messages on apparel, like support for gun rights or labor unions.
The goal, state officials have said, is “an orderly and controlled environment without confusion, interference or distraction.”
The case started when members of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, which says it works to ensure “election integrity,” turned up at Minnesota polling places wearing T-shirts bearing tea party logos and buttons saying “Please ID Me.”
They were told to cover the messages and were allowed to vote even if they refused. But they risked prosecution for disobeying poll workers’ orders.
The group and two individuals challenged the law on free speech grounds, and they lost in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in St. Louis.
“Even if Tea Party apparel is not election-related, it is not unreasonable to prohibit it in a polling place,” Judge Duane Benton wrote. “In order to ensure a neutral, influence-free polling place, all political material is banned.”
Roberts said that went too far. States remain free to decide that “some forms of advocacy should be excluded from the polling place,” he wrote. He cited with seeming approval more focused laws in California and Texas aimed at classic electioneering.
“Casting a vote is a weighty civic act, akin to a jury’s return of a verdict, or a representative’s vote on a piece of legislation,” the chief justice wrote. “It is a time for choosing, not campaigning. The state may reasonably decide that the interior of the polling place should reflect that distinction.”
But Minnesota, Roberts wrote, had failed to “articulate some sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out.”
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, said the court should have asked the Minnesota Supreme Court for a definitive interpretation of the state law.
In a 1992 decision, Burson v. Freeman, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that created a 100-foot buffer zone around polling places barring electioneering. But that law was aimed at traditional campaign signs and posters, not apparel bearing more general messages.
Thursday’s decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435, said nothing that would undermine such buffer zones.