[EL] MVA v. Mansky hypothetical

Tue Feb 27 13:46:49 PST 2018

This is an easy case that doesn’t involve intimidation, harassment, deception, or interference with voting, which are all rightly prohibited by other statutory provisions as well as the VRA. Also, Burson is absolutely correct—but voters’ wearing tshirts/buttons/hats isn’t electioneering. See my WSJ oped that’ll be posted online in a few hours and in tomorrow’s paper.

Ilya Shapiro
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies,
Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC  20001
tel. (202) 218-4600
cel. (202) 577-1134
ishapiro at cato.org<mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
Bio/clips: http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro<http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023

Cato Supreme Court Review:  http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review

Watch our 2017 Constitution Day Conference - Supreme Court Review/Preview:  https://www.cato.org/events/16th-annual-constitution-day

From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Klein
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 4:37 PM
To: Election Law <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] MVA v. Mansky hypothetical

The state’s brief in Mansky hammers on the efforts of Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., in 2010: that is, not only wearing buttons requesting to be ID’d (which fall under the ban of political attire) but actually displaying ID as part of an effort to convince other voters in the area that it is required, when it is not required under Minnesota law.

If the Minnesota law is upheld, could state law constitutionally extend to banning the display of photo ID in polling places?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:25 PM
Subject: [EL] more news 2/27/18
To: "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>

“Free Speech vs. Freedom From Intimidation The Supreme Court is set to reconsider campaigning at the ballot box; Justice Scalia got it right the first time.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97777>
Posted on February 27, 2018 1:22 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97777> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I have written this piece<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/the-supreme-court-is-reconsidering-campaigning-at-the-ballot-box-in-minnesota-voters-alliance-v-mansky.html> for Slate. It begins:

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/minnesota-voters-alliance-v-mansky/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>, a case raising the question of whether Minnesota and other states can prevent people from wearing political apparel like a “Make America Great Again<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/08/trump_s_campaign_hat_making_america_great_again_starting_with_this_hat.html>” cap or a “pussyhat<http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/01/06/knitters_across_the_country_are_making_cat_ear_pussyhats_for_the_women_s.html>” to the polling place.

The question is a close one because it pits the First Amendment right to free speech against the right to vote free of intimidation and interference at the polling place. Considering a similar case<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/191/case.html> in 1992, banning electioneering in areas around polling places Justice Antonin Scalia got it right: Polling places are and have traditionally been “nonpublic forums,” where the state can decide that the right to free speech needs to give way to the tranquility of the election booth. The point is even more urgent in our highly polarized times….

The difficult part of this case comes with the discretion given to polling-place officials. The ban applies not just to campaign messages but also to other political T-shirts. So one poll worker may decide that someone wearing a #MeToo button is too political, but another may not. This could allow for selectivity and arbitrariness at the polling place.

One potential solution<http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-1435/27509/20180111122615333_MVA%20acb%20-%20final.pdf> to this problem suggested by campaign finance opponent Jim Bopp is for the Supreme Court to construe the statute to apply only to messages of express advocacy, like “Vote for Trump” or “Clinton 2016.” This is no solution, however. Everyone knows that a MAGA hat is Trump campaign gear and a pussyhat opposition to Trump, even if they do not contain express words of advocacy. Indeed, if the court construed the statute to apply only to express advocacy, it would become totally ineffective.

The solution here is for state officials to train election workers to recognize political statements and apply the ban evenhandedly. If there is any evidence of viewpoint discrimination—say against Tea Party messages at Democratic-leaning polling places—then it would be time to bring a new lawsuit challenging the law as applied on the ground.

There is a time for politicking and a time for voting. A ruling for Minnesota would ensure that states can recognize the tranquility of the ballot box, especially at a time where our national politics are heated to the point of inspiring violence<http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/11/08/2-separate-fights-erupt-at-orange-county-polling-places/> at the voting booth. Justice Scalia is gone, but let’s hope that the Supreme Court’s remaining First Amendment stalwarts continue to recognize this sanctity.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97777&title=%E2%80%9CFree%20Speech%20vs.%20Freedom%20From%20Intimidation%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20is%20set%20to%20reconsider%20campaigning%20at%20the%20ballot%20box%3B%20Justice%20Scalia%20got%20it%20right%20the%20first%20time.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Scalia<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

--
Steve Klein
Attorney*
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrklein<https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrklein>

*Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180227/76cf6a17/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180227/76cf6a17/attachment.png>