Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota law restricting political apparel at polls

The court remanded the case back to the lower court.

“Cases like this ‘present us with a particularly difficult reconciliation: the accommodation of the right to engage in political discourse with the right to vote.’ Minnesota, like other states, has sought to strike the balance in a way that affords the voter the right to exercise his civic duty in a setting removed from the clamor and din of electioneering,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “While that choice is generally worthy of our respect, Minnesota has not supported its good intentions with a law capable of reasoned application.”

The ruling from the high court could impact similar laws on the books in at least nine other states.

The century-old Minnesota law at issue in the case prohibits people from wearing a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” at a polling place on election day.

Those who show up to the polls wearing these items are instructed by election officials to remove or conceal the apparel at issue. If a voter refuses to do so, their name is recorded for referral to “appropriate authorities” for possible prosecution.

On Election Day in 2010, Andrew Cilek, executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, arrived at his polling place to vote wearing a “Please I.D. Me” button and a “Don’t Tread On Me” shirt.

Cilek was instructed twice by an election worker to remove or conceal his garb, and he refused to do so. He was ultimately allowed to vote, and election officials recorded his name and address for possible prosecution.

The Minnesota Voters Alliance, along with other individuals and organizations, sued the state, arguing the ban on political attire at the polls violated the First Amendment.

But the state said the law helps to ensure a safe voting environment unhampered by intimidation.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Minnesota restrictions, saying they help maintain “peace, order and decorum” in polling places.

During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito sought to test the boundaries of the law in question by peppering the state with a series of examples as to what voters would be permitted to wear to the polls.

Shirts with a rainbow flag or the phrase “Parkland Strong” would be allowed under the Minnesota law, the state told Alito. But a shirt imprinted with the text of the Second Amendment or one for the National Rifle Association would be prohibited, since they’re political in nature, the lawyer representing Minnesota officials said.

A #MeToo shirt or pin may also be deemed too political to be accepted.

Alito at the time argued the Minnesota ban may be overly broad and invite “arbitrary enforcement.”

In the majority opinion, Roberts cited the state’s policy that certain apparel referencing an issue is banned if candidates running for office had staked out positions. Any rule that requires election judges to “maintain a mental index of the platforms and positions” of every candidate on the ballot is “not reasonable,” he wrote.

“Would a ‘Support Our Troops’ shirt be banned, if one of the candidates or parties had expressed a view on military funding or aid for veterans? What about a ‘#MeToo’ short, referencing the movement to increase awareness of sexual harassment and assault? At oral argument, the state indicated that the ban would cover such an item if a candidate had ‘brought up’ the topic,” the chief justice wrote.

In her dissent, Sotomayor said Minnesota state courts should have been given the opportunity to offer a “definitive interpretation” of the ban.

“Especially where there are undisputedly many constitutional applications of a state law that further weighty state interests, the court should be wary of invalidating a law without giving the state’s highest court an opportunity to pass upon it,” she wrote.