U.S. Supreme Court will hear free speech suit over Minnesota’s dress code for voters
Washington, D.C.; November 13, 2017: The Supreme Court announced today that it will hear a First Amendment challenge to Minnesota’s sweeping, speech-stifling restrictions on what can be worn while voting. Represented free of charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, concerned residents like Andy Cilek are targeting the state’s unconstitutional prohibition on wearing anything to the polls that might be interpreted as even slightly ideological, even if it has no relation to any candidate, ballot measure, or political party.
PLF filed the successful petition for certiorari on behalf of the Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA), a nonprofit organization whose members are dedicated to preventing voter fraud; Andy Cilek, Executive Director of the MVA; and Sue Jeffers, a radio talk show host in Minneapolis/St. Paul and former election judge.
This will be PLF’s 14th case before the High Court.
“This is an encouraging day for the cause of free speech and freedom of expression,” said PLF attorney Wen Fa. “With this case, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to strike a blow for core constitutional freedoms, by declaring that Minnesota can’t turn polling places into First Amendment-free zones.
“The state’s restrictions on voter apparel apply to any clothing that reflects personal values, even clothing with a message that is unrelated to anyone’s campaign,” said Fa. “Such a limitless ban on personal expression is unconstitutional.”
The case challenges a Minnesota law that forbids voters from wearing any “political badge, political button, or other political insignia.” Officials have interpreted this open-ended language to cover messages that merely express a general social or philosophical outlook. As the government itself noted at oral argument, Minnesota’s broad political apparel ban encompasses any shirt with the logo of the Chamber of Commerce or the AFL-CIO.
“We are encouraged that the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of our challenge,” said Andy Cilek. “This law is dangerous, because it empowers politicians with power to crush legitimate political expression with which they disagree.”
“Pacific Legal Foundation defends individual liberty, a core component of which is freedom to express one’s values and viewpoints,” said PLF President and CEO Steven D. Anderson. “We look forward to vindicating this important right in another trip before the Supreme Court.”
About Pacific Legal Foundation
PLF litigates nationwide to secure all Americans’ inalienable rights to live responsibly and productively in their pursuit of happiness. PLF combines strategic and principled litigation, communications, and research to achieve landmark court victories enforcing the Constitution’s guarantee of individual liberty.
Case CommentarySee all posts
The Supreme Court announced that it will hear a First Amendment challenge to Minnesota’s sweeping, speech-stifling restrictions on what can be worn while voting. In this week’s episode of PLF’s Courting Liberty podcast, hear from case attorney Wen Fa and client Andy Cilek as they break down the importance and gravity of their fight for free speech.Read more
The Supreme Court of the United States granted PLF’s petition for certiorari in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, a First Amendment challenge to a Minnesota law that bans political apparel at the polling place.Read more
Minnesota bans political apparel at polling places across the State. The government interprets “political” broadly: the ban applies to shirts with classic American phrases such as “Liberty” or “Don’t tread on me,” as long as those phrases appear alongside a tea party logo — no matter how small.Read more