On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Strike Down Minnesota Law Banning Political Expression on Shirts & Hats Worn at Polling Places
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Calling a Minnesota state election law which bans political speech on any “badge, button, shirt, or hat” worn at a polling station “truly breathtaking,” attorneys for The Rutherford Institute are urging the United States Supreme Court to strike down the law by ruling that it is a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Under the Minnesota statute § 211B.11, unelected and unaccountable polling judges are given the power to prevent voters from wearing any “political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia…at or about the police place on primary or election day.” Furthermore, the statute completely lacks any definition of what constitutes “political” speech, giving election judges sole discretion to determine what political speech is on a case-by-case basis. In a joint filing with the Cato Institute, The Rutherford Institute is encouraging the Supreme Court to hear Minnesota Majority et al. v. Joe Mansky et al.
“The polling site is one of the few remaining places where citizens can effectively voice their discontent with their government,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “Shutting down this traditional forum for expression threatens the very democratic principles that this nation was founded on, and undermines the purpose of the First Amendment. In order to preserve the integrity of the First Amendment and the polling place, it is our hope that the high court will grant this petition and invalidate the statute as a violation of the freedom of speech.”
In 2010, legislators in Minnesota revised a state election law to include a ban on the wearing of any apparel that included any “political” speech at polling places. In response to the state’s attempt to stifle speech at the polling place, Minnesota Majority, Voters Alliance, and several other voters’ rights groups filed a lawsuit in November 2010 requesting a temporary restraining order and an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect ahead of the midterm elections. The requested injunction was denied, and the law went into effect as scheduled. On Election Day, several registered voters were specifically threatened with prosecution or were told to remove clothing items or buttons that said “Please I.D. Me” or had Tea Party logos, and an untold number of other voters were deterred from wearing such items in the first place on the threat of prosecution. Following the election, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the statute was a constitutional restriction on voters’ speech. The voters’ rights groups appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the decision of the District Court.
The Rutherford Institute, in conjunction with the public policy research think-tank The Cato Institute, filed a joint brief with the Supreme Court arguing that in banning all “political” speech, the Minnesota statute restricts far too much speech without good reason. Additionally, Rutherford Institute attorneys point out that there is a serious potential for abuse of voters’ free speech rights when appointed election officials are given unlimited discretion to determine under what circumstances political speech should be censored. Such power, Institute attorneys argue, invites the targeted suppression of minority viewpoints and undermines the core objective of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
