First Amendment

Freedom of Expression

(Bar wire tongue)

The United States government

cannot restrict a citizen's
right to communicate their
opinions and ideas.
WASHINGTON — Minnesota has a dress code for voting. The
idea, the state says, is to create a safe space for
democracy.

To make sure voters are in a properly contemplative

mood at their polling places on Election Day, the state
bans T-shirts, hats and buttons that express even
general political views, 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.”

Critics say the law violates the principle at the core

of the First Amendment: that the government may not
censor speech about politics. They add that voters can
be trusted to vote sensibly even after glancing at a
political message.

“A T-shirt will not destroy democracy,” a group

challenging the law told the Supreme Court this month.

The court will hear arguments in the case, Minnesota

Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435, next month.

By the time the term ends in June, the justices will

decide whether people can be forced to choose between
their right to express themselves and their right to
vote.

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 I.D. Me.”
They were told to cover the messages and were allowed
to vote even if they refused. But they risked
prosecution for disobeying polls workers’ orders.

The group and two individuals challenged the law on

free speech grounds, and they lost in the lower courts.
A trial judge said the “Please I.D. Me” buttons were
particularly problematic because they were “part of an
orchestrated effort to falsely intimate to voters in
line at the polls that photo identification is required
in order to vote in Minnesota.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit, in St. Louis, upheld the law.

“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.”

The Supreme Court case is not centered on the

particular items the challengers wanted to wear. It is
instead a general challenge to the law, saying it is
overbroad and vague even if the particular items could
constitutionally be barred.

The Minnesota law is certainly written in broad terms.

“A political badge, political button or other political
insignia may not be worn at or about a polling place on
primary or election day,” its key provision says.

State officials have interpreted the law to bar not

only campaign buttons and the like but also any apparel
that takes a position on a contested political issue or
promotes “a group with recognizable political views
(such as the Tea Party, MoveOn.org and so on).”

When the case was argued in the Eighth Circuit, the

state’s lawyer said the law could apply to T-shirts
bearing the logos of the Chamber of Commerce or a labor
union.

In dissent, Judge Bobby E. Shepherd wondered why “the

presence of a passive and peaceful voter” wearing a
T-shirt would disrupt polling places. Among the
T-shirts banned by the law, Judge Shepherd said, were
ones promoting the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign
Wars, the National Rifle Association, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.
and the N.A.A.C.P.

The state has an important precedent on its side.

In a 1992 decision, Burson v. Freeman, the Supreme

Court upheld a Tennessee law that created a 100-foot
buffer zone around polling places. But that law was
aimed at traditional campaign signs and posters, not
apparel bearing more general messages.

The Supreme Court upheld the Tennessee law. Justice

Harry A. Blackmun, writing for a four-member plurality,
said it was needed to combat “voter intimidation and
election fraud.”

Laws like the one in Tennessee are fairly easy to

enforce. The Minnesota law, and similar ones in at
least nine other states, require difficult on-the-spot
judgments about what apparel qualifies as political.
Those decisions, moreover, are often made by temporary
poll workers rather than seasoned government officials.
Such workers can make odd calls. In 2012, a young woman
wearing an M.I.T. sweatshirt was stopped by a confused
Denver poll worker who thought she was electioneering
on behalf of Mitt Romney, a presidential candidate.

A supervisor intervened, explaining that the initials

on the shirt stood for the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

“There was only one ‘T,’ so the voter was not

electioneering,” Alton Dillard, a spokesman for the
Denver Clerk and Recorder’s Office, explained.

Another poll worker tried to stop a Houston woman from

voting in the 2008 election because she was wearing an
Alaska T-shirt. Sarah Palin, then the state’s governor,
was running for vice president.

Again, cooler heads prevailed.

Similar problems have arisen in the Supreme Court’s

backyard. A few years ago, I saw a court police officer
order a man wearing a “Guns Save Lives” button on the
Supreme Court plaza to remove it.

“No political logos on the plaza,” an officer said.

I asked the officer for his reasoning. “You can’t

interview people on the plaza,” he responded.

He was part of a long tradition. A Supreme Court police

officer once threatened a woman with arrest for
displaying a sign bearing the verbatim text of the
First Amendment.
Whether at a polling place or on the Supreme Court
plaza, decorum is a worthy goal. But so is the robust
debate protected by the First Amendment.

Write Up

Paraphrase of Adam Liptak’s “When a T-Shirt Gets You in

Trouble at the Voting Booth”

When state officials in Washington, Minnesota decide to

enforce a dress code for voting sessions in order to
create a “safe space”, voters were left frustrated. The
dress codes ban any apparel with political messages,
from t-shirts, hats, and buttons which express even the
most general political views. Many law upholders say
that the ban violates the main principle of the first
amendment, the freedom of expression. The case has been
brought up to court. The court will hear arguments in
the case, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No.
16-1435, next month. Until the case arrives at court,
justices will have to decide whether voters will be
forced to choose between their right to express
themselves and their right to vote.

Voters feel that the ban on wearing political messaged

apparel at voting sessions is a violation of their
freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Voters
claim that a political messaged apparel will not impact
the decisions of others. Others say that the voters
should be trusted to vote reasonably even after seeing
a political messaged shirt. A group challenging the law
also stated that single T-Shirt won’t destroy
democracy. While state officials argue that banning is
necessary as voting needs to be taken in an “orderly
and controlled” environment without any distraction as
it can alter the decision of one's voting opinion.

This article is a reflection of the First

Amendment/Freedom of expression as it involves the
controversy regarding states officials banning
political messages on apparel at polling places. The
dispute is between voters and state officials. The main
question is whether the state’s action on banning
political apparel at polling places is a violation to
the voters of Minnesota, of their right of Freedom of
Expression.