I think the ruling was not exactly that a polling place is a limited public forum. Such a ruling would suggest that the govt (or the owner of the polling place property) could not prohibit political speech (handing out fliers, giving speeches in favor of candidates, etc.) within the polling place.  Rather, I think the ruling was that the private property on which the polling place was located was a limited public forum *beyond the 100 foot limit in which no political activity (other than voting!) is permitted*. Thus the union whose hall was being used as a polling place could not discriminate against the tea party member with respect to her political speech beyond that 100 foot limit outside the polling place (but still on the union’s property). Apparently the court was not convinced that such discrimination had been proved and thus denied provisional relief. At least that’s my initial impression from a quick read of the article.

 

Mark Scarberry

Pepperdine

 

 

November 02, 2010

-- 

Rick Hasen

William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law

Loyola Law School

919 Albany Street

Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211

(213)736-1466

(213)380-3769 - fax

rick.hasen@lls.edu

http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html

http://electionlawblog.org