Case No. 16-1435 | 8th Cir. Decision
Though it may not boast the same high stakes as debates over voting rights and redistricting, another case before the Court this term may affect Americans’ rights at the ballot box in a different way: what they have the right to wear.
Minnesota is one of ten states that bans voters from wearing political apparel at polling locations. The state’s ban prohibits voters from wearing a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” while voting. See Minn. Stat. § 211B.11. On Election Day 2010, voters wearing shirts and buttons supporting Tea Party-aligned groups were told to cover up their political apparel and, in some cases, turned away from the polling place.
The Minnesota Voters Alliance (“MVA”) brought facial and as-applied challenges to the statute, arguing that it violated the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaints. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the facial challenge but remanded the as-applied challenge. The district court then granted summary judgment to the state on the as-applied challenge, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
MVA argues that the statute is overbroad, giving state officials wide discretion to ban any form of political attire. MVA distinguishes active campaigning for candidates and political causes from passive political speech. While the state’s legitimate interest in maintaining peace and order at polling locations may justify limiting the former, MVA argues, it cannot justify restrictions on the latter. Moreover, even if the state can legitimately prohibit Tea Party-themed attire on the basis that it might seek to influence how voters cast their ballots, MVA argues the statute is nonetheless too broad to stand.
The state argues that the statute is far narrower than Petitioners suggest. Under the state’s interpretation, apparel is only prohibited if it is intended to influence how people vote. Moreover, because the government is regulating speech in a government-sponsored forum, the state contends, the restriction need only be viewpoint-neutral and reasonable. In this case, the restriction serves the state’s legitimate interest in protecting the voting booth from confusion and improper influence. Finally, the state argues that the law is not overbroad, but urges the Court to certify a question over the law’s interpretation to the Minnesota Supreme Court in case it is concerned about its reach.