PLF files opening brief at Supreme Court in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
Pacific Legal Foundation today filed its Petitioners’ Brief on the Merits in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, a case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court granted review on November 13, 2017, and oral argument will be held on February 28.
In Minnesota Voters Alliance, PLF represents Minnesota voters in their First Amendment challenge to a law that bans apparel with a logo of any group with a “recognizable political view,” from the National Rifle Association to the NAACP. Lead client Andy Cilek is a Minnesota voter who was prevented from voting for five hours, and had his name taken down for potential criminal prosecution just for wearing a Tea Party shirt. Rather than endorse any candidate or ballot measure, the shirt merely featured an image of the Gadsden flag and the words “Don’t tread on me.”
To justify its actions, the government pointed to a Minnesota law that bans political badges, buttons, and other political insignia at polling places throughout the State. Cilek, along with the Minnesota Voters Alliance and others, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit and argued that the law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Rather than discarding its broad law, the government doubled down on the statute’s sheer breadth by acknowledging that the law bans, in addition to Tea Party apparel, the apparel of every group from the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO.
In our brief, we note that no conceivable governmental interest can support such a broad ban on expression. Further, because what is and is not “political” is generally left to the whim of an election official, the Minnesota law invites discrimination on the basis of viewpoint. Liberal election judges may be more inclined think that those wearing a NRA shirt are violating the statute; conservative election judges might freely dish out punishment to voters wearing ACLU t-shirts. The potential for abuse with this broad law is obvious and untenable.
PLF is fighting for the Free Speech rights of voters of every political viewpoint, regardless of whether they wish to express their affinity for the Tea Party or the AFL-CIO. And because nine other states have similar laws, we’re fighting for the First Amendment rights of voters nationwide. As I stated at a press conference when this case was granted:
I say to you today that we’re not just fighting for voters in Minnesota that want to wear Tea Party shirts that say “liberty or don’t tread on me.” We’re fighting for small business owners in Tennessee who want to wear Chamber of Commerce shirts. We’re fighting for union members in New York who want to wear AFL-CIO shirts. We’re fighting for sportsmen in Texas who want to wear NRA shirts. And we’re fighting for civil rights advocates in Vermont who want to wear shirts that say NAACP. We’re fighting for you, no matter what your views, no matter where you live, for your First Amendment right to free speech.
We expect many briefs in support of our clients — and the First Amendment — next Friday. The government’s brief is due around February 5th, and our reply will be due on February 20. A decision is expected no later than June.
learn more about
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a polling-place dress code in Minnesota, upholding free speech rights across the nation and protecting the right of Americans to peacefully express their political views at the polls.
PLF represented Minnesota voters, including Andy Cilek, who showed up at his polling place wearing a t-shirt that read “Don’t tread on me.” State law bans voters from wearing any “political” apparel at a polling place. This includes any t-shirt, button, or other items that could be construed as political, or even organizations that take political positions such as the AFL-CIO or NRA. A poll worker not only prevented Andy from voting for five hours, but also took down his name for possible prosecution.Read more
What to read next
The Forest Service pulled a bait-and-switch on a decades-old land deal. Here’s how the owners are fighting back.
When the government negotiates for a limited-access easement across your property, it cannot turn around later and decide it has an unlimited right to cross your property. Wil Wilkins and … ›
This morning, PLF filed an Amicus Letter urging the Supreme Court of California to grant review of the court of appeal’s decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control … ›