Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota's voter clothing law
Law Firm News
Today's Legal News Bookmark This Website
Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota's voter clothing law
Court News Feed | 2018/06/13 12:57
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Minnesota law that barred voters in the state from wearing a wide range of political hats, T-shirts and pins to the polls.

Minnesota had defended its law as a reasonable restriction that keeps order at polling places and prevents voter intimidation. But the justices ruled 7-2 that the state's law is too broad, violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "if a State wishes to set its polling places apart as areas free of partisan discord, it must employ a more discernible approach than the one Minnesota has offered here."

Most states have laws restricting what voters can wear when they cast ballots, but Minnesota's law was one of the broadest. It barred voters from casting a ballot while wearing clothing with the name of a candidate or political party. Also not allowed: clothing that references an issue on the ballot or promotes a group with recognizable political views. A National Rifle Association T-shirt or shirt with the text of the Second Amendment wouldn't be allowed, for example, according to the lawyer who argued the case for the state.

Roberts noted that Minnesota, like other states, had sought to balance a voter's ability to "engage in political discourse" with the ability to "exercise his civic duty in a setting removed from the clamor and din of electioneering."

"While that choice is generally worthy of our respect, Minnesota has not supported its good intentions with a law capable of reasoned application," he wrote.

It is unclear exactly how many states the ruling could affect beyond Minnesota. Both Minnesota and the group challenging the state's law had said there are about 10 states with laws like Minnesota's, though they disagreed significantly on which ones, agreeing only on Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Vermont.

The case before the Supreme Court dates back to 2010 and involves a dispute that began over tea party T-shirts and buttons with the words "Please I.D. Me," a reference to legislation then under discussion in Minnesota that would have required residents to show photo identification to vote. The legislation ultimately didn't become law.

Pointing to the state's statute, Minnesota officials said before the election that neither the tea party T-shirts nor those buttons would be permitted at the polls. In response, a group of voters and organizations sued.


[PREV] [1] ..[794][795][796][797][798][799][800][801][802].. [2655] [NEXT]
All
Antitrust Issues
Legal News Update
Legal Business Articles
Class Action Law Suits
Corporate Governance Law
Court News Feed
Criminal Law Articles
Elder Law Issues
Entertainment Law
Family Law Issues
Health Care Law
Legal Rights
Immigration Law
Legal Insurance
Intellectual Property Law
Labor & Employment Law
Legal Center
Legal Professional Business
Legal Internet Marketing
Litigation Law
Medical Malpractice Issues
Mergers & Acquisitions Matters
People on the News
Political and Legal Trends
Political Insight
Legal Focuses
Real Estate Law
Security Trends
Tax Information
Tort Reform Guidelines
Venture Business Articles
World Business Today
Law Firm Highlights
Attorney Info
Environmental Issues
Careers in the Legal Sector
Civil Rights Updates
DUI Info
Military Law Practices
Patent Law Information
Legal Consumer Rights
International Legal News
Maritime Law
Legal Outlook & Information
Law School Articles
TikTok content creators sue ..
Abortion consumes US politic..
Trump faces prospect of addi..
Retrial of Harvey Weinstein ..
Starbucks appears likely to ..
Supreme Court will weigh ban..
Judge in Trump case orders m..
Court makes it easier to sue..
Top Europe rights court cond..
Elon Musk will be investigat..


   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
Chicago Work Accident Lawyer
Chicago Workplace Injury Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Indianapolis Personal Injury Law Firm
Indiana, IN Personal Injury Attorneys
www.williamspiatt.com
San Francisco Family Law Lawyer
San Jose Family Law Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
 
 
© www.timelegalnews.com. All rights reserved.

The content and articles provided on this website have been prepared by Time Legal News as an informational source and service to the legal internet community and is not to act or constitute as any type of legal advice or consultation with an actual licensed attorney or legal professional in any case or circumstance.Time Legal News blog posts and comments are available for educational purposes only and should not be used to determine or valuate a legal situation or matter. Affordable Law Firm Website Design