PLF IS GOING to the U.S. Supreme Court once again, making this our 14th time we’ve been before the high court. This time, we are fighting for the First Amendment rights of voters nationwide. In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, we’re representing Minnesota voters in their challenge to a statewide ban on political buttons, badges, and t-shirts at the polling place.
Minnesota defines “political” to engulf virtually any apparel with a message that a government official could associate with a political viewpoint. In fact, government lawyers admitted before the court of appeals that the ban covers shirts with the logos of the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. And the sheer breadth of the Minnesota ban allows government officials to dish out hefty penalties—up to a year in jail or $5,000 in fines—to voters wearing anything from a badge by the NRA to a button by the NAACP. No one should be imprisoned for what they wear.
In November 2010, PLF’s lead client, Andy Cilek, went to vote. As executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, Andy was not shy about standing up for his beliefs. That’s why he did not back down when an election official told him he was breaking the law just by wearing a t-shirt—one that said “don’t tread on me” with a picture of the Gadsden flag and a logo of the local tea party. The election official threatened to prosecute Andy and detained him for hours before letting him vote.
Andy did eventually vote; he also filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that Minnesota’s law violated his First Amendment right to free expression. Like Andy, many Americans express themselves by what they wear: the bride wears white on her wedding day; James Bond wears stylish tuxedos; Minnesota football fans wear Vikings jerseys. But Minnesota’s law threatens voters who exercise their right to expression when they go to vote.
Andy was initially unsuccessful. The court of appeals upheld the Minnesota dress code. A 1992 Supreme Court decision endorsed a ban on campaign-related apparel—”vote for Bush” or “vote for Clinton”— at the polling place, and the court of appeals thought that Minnesota’s ban on all political speech could be upheld for the same reason. Not so. A ban on campaign-related messages could plausibly further the government’s interest in preventing voter intimidation or election fraud. That’s not true with a ban on Chamber of Commerce or AFL-CIO shirts, which do not endorse a candidate or express an opinion on a ballot initiative.
But there’s good news on the way. The Supreme Court will hear the case and take a fresh look at Minnesota’s unconstitutional Election Day policy. In a testament to our long-range, strategic litigation plan, Pacific Legal Foundation, representing Andy free-of-charge at the Supreme Court, will vindicate the free speech rights of voters not just in Minnesota, but also across the country. We look forward to the argument early next year.
