I do know the difference, I just have a disconnect at times between head and keyboard. So the correction WAS pedantic and unnecessary for me. But I don’t mind because that is the way they board works.
As a member of they board, I’m sorry for the “Us vs They” line we’ve toad in the past.
In Minnesota its 100 feet, and you can’t loiter within 100 ft of a public polling place. So he might get a fine for loitering in a public polling place had he done it here…but arrested?, not a chance.
And that does mean that the homes next to the polling place need to remove lawn signs on election day.
All the polling places I’ve been to have no private property within 150ft.
My guess is they could ask someone next to a polling place to move thier sign but I doubt they’d enforce it.
That’s the way it works here (Saskatchewan). There was an news article a few elections back about a home-owner who was upset about being told to take down a sign because her home was within the “no politicking” radius.
I know its been enforced in Minnesota since one of the polling place neighbors had a $30 fine and it made our very local community newspaper (and it was for something like County Attorney - not a huge election). You can leave it there until the polling place opens, but then you need to take it down.
In that case the polling place was a firestation in a suburban neighborhood with houses within 150 ft… Three of them, I believe - one on each side, one across the street.
But I live in a suburb with a history of very contentious elections, lawsuits and campaign fraud (including people claiming endorsements they didn’t have, people holding fundraisers in public buildings they had access to due to their office). Its a little nuts here on a local level.
I just read the law that’s linked, twice, and AFAICT it only restricts you from “posting, exhibiting, circulating or distributing any poster, card, handbill, placard, picture or circular intended to influence the action of a voter, or any paster to be placed upon the official ballot.” It doesn’t say anything about speaking to voters and asking for their vote within the 150 ft limit. Which has in fact happened to me multiple times as an MA resident during local elections. There’s a painted line that the people with signs have to stay out of, but I’ve seen plenty of candidates standing at the door, shaking hands, and verbally asking for my support in the election. So I don’t think Clinton violated any law at all.
Where did you get that idea?
When did Bill become a registered voter in Massachusetts? Or is he registered in all the states?
Give it up dude. He didn’t break the law and it’s a $20 ticket misdemeanor even if he did.
Hmm - the “No soliciting votes with 150 ft.” rule is actually a voting regulation from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, not state law. So in theory there’s no punishment for violating it, apart from being removed by the police:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/lawlib/900-999cmr/950cmr53.pdf
"(d) Activities at Polling Place. Within 150 feet of a polling place as defined in 950 CMR
53.03(18)(c), no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any
person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election. "
‘MA Sanders Voters and Volunteers Disenfranchised by Bill Clinton’ Have run with this and have now filed suit they are asking the MA primary results be invalidated and all MA delegates be assigned to Sanders.
It’s interesting to see Sanders supporters are completely willing to toss democratic votes in order to achieve their ends.
Google puts that story right before the headline “Clinton Mistress: Hillary had ‘Multiple’ Abortions.”
That says something about the source, if not the content of the report.
I found it on the front page of reddit. Many posters thought it was fantastic.
That Hillary’s had multiple abortions? 
The top response on a (not necessarily the) Reddit thread:
The top reply to it also notes that the same user also posted a doc called “911 Inside Job Exhibit A.”
And even if someone were filing a lawsuit, that would say something only about that person who filed a lawsuit. Yes, we all know that both sides (or all sides, if you’re counting Sanders’ and Clinton’s supporters as separate sides) have a nonzero number of cranks. That’s unimportant: What matters is the proportion of cranks, and how the non-cranks respond to them.
So he should have different rights because of who he is?
The ban on campaigning is to give people a little space and not have campaigners in their faces or spy on how they are voting or whatever. It is NOT to prevent people from influencing each other in any way. The voters don’t need that kind of protection.
As an example, I can’t show up at the polling place with a “Vote Democratic” t-shirt…but I am permitted to show up wearing a blue t-shirt. There’s just enough of a fig-leaf of deniability to protect that level of abstract symbolic speech.
(If not…then I want anyone who shows up to vote who is wearing an American Flag lapel pin to be ejected, because that’s become a stereotypical Republican symbol.)
Because of course, President Obama is a stereotypical Republican.:rolleyes:
Don’t be silly. Are you seriously unaware of the correlation? Are you ignorant of statistical correlation in general? Pseudo naivete does not become you.