Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota voter clothing restrictions

The US Supreme Court has struck down a century-old Minnesota law that bars its state’s voters from wearing T-shirts, campaign buttons and hats with political messages to the polls.

The justices ruled in a 7-2 decision that the state law restricts a form of expression under the protection of the First Amendment. John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, reasoned that since the interior of a polling pace is considered a government-controlled “non-public forum,” it therefore can only impose restrictions on speech so long as they are “reasonable” and do not “suppress expression.”

The Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA), the group that challenged the state law, argued preceding legal cases involving activity at polling places aimed to prohibit voter fraud, intimidation and general disorder – concerns MVA argued were fundamentally different to Minnesota’s law. The group challenged the state law as broad and inherently prohibiting passive self-expression instead.

The lawsuit was brought by political activist, and MVA co-founder, Andrew Cilek who went to the polls in 2010 wearing a T-shirt and button with Tea Party messages reading: “Don’t Tread on Me.” and “Please I.D. Me,” respectively.

Mr Cilek was initially stopped by poll workers but they later relented allowing him to vote. The confrontation led Mr Cilek to file a lawsuit arguing Minnesota’s law leaves too much discretion with election workers to decide what is a political message and what’s not.

Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that states have “permissible objective” on prohibitions at polling places in the majority opinion but noted concerns with the broad interpretation of Minnesota’s voter clothing law:

“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?” Mr. Roberts wrote. “What about a ‘#MeToo’ shirt, 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.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Stephen Breyers, wrote the dissenting opinion.

“The Court invalidates Minnesota’s political apparel ban based on its inability to define the term ‘political'” Justice Sotomayor wrote. She added: “The majority believes that the law is not ‘capable of reasoned application’... but it reaches that conclusion without taking the preferential step of first asking the state courts to provide “an accurate picture of how, exactly, the statute works.”