Term: 2017
Docket: 16-1435
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
- Pro
16-1435 MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE V. MANSKY DECISION BELOW: 849 F3d 749 CERT. GRANTED 11/13/2017 QUESTION PRESENTED: Minnesota election law forbids voters from wearing political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia at the polling place. See Minn. Stat. § 211B.ll. The ban broadly prohibits any material "designed to influence and impact voting," or "promoting a group with recognizable political views," even when the apparel makes no reference to any issue or candidate on the ballot. The Eighth Circuit, aligned with the Fifth and D.C. Circuits, invoked Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), to hold that a state can impose a "speechfree zone" without infringing on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. There is deep tension between those decisions and the reasoning in decisions of the Fourth and Seventh Circuits, which hold that the First Amendment does not allow a state to prohibit all political speech. The question presented is: Is Minnesota Statute Section 211B.ll, which broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place, facially overbroad under the First Amendment? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-1682, 15-1741
The case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 2017 revolved around a Minnesota law that prohibited individuals from wearing political badges, buttons or other insignia inside polling places on election day. The Minnesota Voters Alliance and several other plaintiffs challenged this law as an infringement upon their First Amendment rights to free speech. They argued that the ban was overly broad and could potentially prohibit any clothing with logos of organizations deemed 'political'. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a 7-2 decision, stating that while states have the right to limit some forms of expression at polling places to maintain peace and order, Minnesota's law was too vague about what constituted 'political' apparel which led to arbitrary enforcement by poll workers.
In the dissenting opinion for Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Breyer, argued that the majority's decision to strike down a Minnesota law prohibiting political apparel at polling places was misguided. They contended that the state had a compelling interest in maintaining peace and order at polling sites and ensuring an "island of calm" where voters could freely exercise their right to vote without undue influence or intimidation. The justices believed that while some parts of the law may have been overly broad, it should not invalidate its entirety; instead suggesting it be interpreted more narrowly. They also expressed concern about potential consequences of this ruling on similar laws across other states aimed at protecting voter integrity.
