I voted for the first time tonight. When I entered the room where I voted, I saw a sign that had been posted, informing everyone that some Minnesotan statute forbid anyone in the voting room from wearing any political buttons or paraphenalia.
My first thought was: Good thing I’m not wearing my Nader button.
My second thought: Hasn’t the Minnesotan legislature ever heard of the First Amendment?
I don’t think I misread the notice (although that is a posibility). Assuming that I read it correctly, is it even remotely Constitutional?
Almost every state has statutes regulating political speech around polling areas. In NY, you can not conduct any campaign activities within a 200 meter radius the the poll. It’s not a constitutional issue; it’s a matter of state regulations. Nothing is preventing you from proudly displaying your Nader button somewhere else.
The same law applies here in California. There are signs so many feet from the polling places that say “NO ELECTIONEERING”.
If you want to find out if this is constitutional, get arrested for wearing a campaign button, and then fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
Most states have laws about no politicking at polling places. What they’re most concerned about is some candidate putting a bunch of supporters at the polling station to intimidate/influence voters.
I don’t know if the laws have been tested, but it seems likely they’re constitutional. You can do whatever you want anywhere else as long as it’s not a polling place. At best the court would only consider it a minor inconvenience, and not an infringement on your rights.
Now, if you come to the polls wearing a button, and do nothing else, most likely no one’s going to say anyting. But if you start screaming “Vote for Bush” at every voter that comes in, you’re going to be arrested.
In my state (Washington), I think we have a law against campaining within fifty feet of a polling place. The rule extends to any sort of sign or button. I don’t consider this an infringement of free speech.
I think such rules are necessary, to keep the over-zealous from making a circus of the polling place. It would be really irritating to have to listen to people try to influence my vote while I was making it, or even to have to read signs or buttons about it.
By the time I get to the polling place, I’m decided. I don’t want to have to deal with people trying to change that at the last minute.
All states have laws re political messages within x number of feet from a polling place. These laws are definitely constitutional. The rights established in the bill of rights are not absolute. We all know that we can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. Neither can we shout Nader, Bush, or Gore in a crowded polling place, which we would be doing if we wore a button, placed a sign, etc. In such cases, the courts balance the interests between protecting an established right and the harm it would do.
Short version: Yes. [und]See[/und] Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 112 S. Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed. 2d 5; (1992). In Burson the Court held that a Tennessee law banning electioneering at polling places was constitutional because it served the compelling state interest of preventing voter intimidation and election fraud.
For the record: From it’s positioning, I’m quite certain that the notice applied to everyone, not just the people working there.
Thank you all for responding.
I can see why they wouldn’t allow someone yelling out “Vote Bush!” or “Vote Gore!” or whatever. That’s just plain disruption. I also can see that nobody’s going to drag me out of the place in 'cuffs for simply wearing, say, a Nader button. The most I can imagine happening is someone tapping my shoulder and directing my attention to the notice and giving me a frown if I refuse to remove the button (not that I would).
Still, I can’t help but think there isn’t any compelling interest for preventing someone from wearing a button or a sticker, so long as they’re not actively bothering anyone.
Apparantly the courts disagree. I’m not too surprised.
It isn’t a matter of the courts disagreeing with you (yet).
The courts have established that the states may reasonably prevent electioneering too near the polls. The states then make fairly rigid laws so that the poor election workers don’t have to stand around all day arguing with every yahoo about what “electioneering” means in their context.
If you really wanted to make an issue of it (and could find an election worker with enough time to hassle you), you could probably challenge the “button rule” in court. You might win; you might lose. If the laws weren’t particularly rigid (and even a bit stupid), you can pretty well bet that someone would be hedging on the rules all the time, just to see how far they could go.
Jodi, smartt is an editor of a Brazilian porno magazine. How dare you doubt his credentials as an expert on US Constitutional law? I buy Brazilian porn for the thorough analysis and debate on Con law principles. Findlaw’s got nothing on those guys.
Noone doubts Jodi’s expertise on Constituional law. In fact, from her posts she does a very thorough research on all the issues in the threads. She cited one SC case on electioneering near a voting area. Since she did not cite any others, we can all rest assured that that’s been the only one. The question of whether merely wearing a badge impedes the “compelling” state interest has, therefore, never been decided.
You can’t yell “Fire.” You can’t say “Fire” in a loud voice. Can you whisper “Fire”? What if you whisper “Fire” and no one hears you - what if you wear a badge and no one sees it?
At the risk of sounding snide, “smartt,” you are not.
The U.S. Supreme Court decides what is constitutional. If they had not spoken on this issue, then you’d have at least a good argument that these regulations are not constitutional – even though all state laws are favored with the strong presumption of constitutionality.
But in this matter, the Supreme Court has spoken. Mary Freeman was the treasurer for a Tenessee political campaign, and she felt, as you do, that the law prohibiting solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place limited her ability to communicate with voters in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court, which ultimately heard the case (BURSON v. FREEMAN, 504 U.S. 191 (1992)) decided against her. They said that:
The correct “short version,” smartt, is, “Yes, it’s Constitutional.”
First off: I suspect this may be an urban legend, but I couldn’t find it on Snopes. So, I’ll ask here.
I recall hearing that in a previous election where the Green Party had several candidates running. Whoever was manning the door at the time had instructions to keep anyone prominently wearing green clothes from entering, and was supposed to instruct them to go home and change before they could cast their vote. Why something like this would unduly influence any voter into supporting the Green Party is beyond me, but that’s just what I heard. For the record, though, I decided to test this out by wearing a green t-shirt and I didn’t have any problems.
Probably an urban legend, but I just thought I’d ask if anyone has heard of this.
This article has some stuff on problems at polling places yesterday here in Missouri. The entire article is interesting, but since the part that is relevant to this thread is towards the bottom of the rather long article I’ll post it in the message too:
*At Oakwood Manor Elementary School in Gladstone, voters could pick up their ballot, read the sample ballot and then decide how to vote from a stack of brochures advising them.
The brochures were the Christian Coalition’s voters guide.
When voter Dane Dingerson complained to the election poll supervisor, Sara Manichia, she told him: “God wants Bush to win.”
Dingerson was outraged.
“I couldn’t believe she said that to me as I was voting,” he said. “When I became angry, she told me there was nothing wrong with her informing the voters the right way to vote.”
Manichia said she has been a polling supervisor for 13 years. “Yes, I told him that God wants Bush to win. I’m proud of my beliefs, and I love the gospel, and God hates abortion…He wants Bush to win.”
Clay County election officials said they would investigate. Electioneering is against the law within 25 feet of a voting precinct. *
