"Please ID Me" lawsuit tossed out "with prejudice"

Categories: Politics

please id me badge.jpg
A judge dismisses a "Please ID Me" lawsuit "With Prejudice"
You can't go to the polls in Minnesota on Election Day festooned in political messages, whether they're on shirts, hats, buttons or whatever. It's against the law.

But the "Please ID Me" people, who urged vigilantes to run after grannies on Election Day with video cameras to make sure they weren't voting twice, figured they'd try it anyway.

Because nothing reinforces your opinion that our election process is corrupt like violating laws designed to make sure that our election process isn't corrupt.

"Please ID Me" is one of the cross-pollinating conservative umbrella groups agitating for a law that would require all Minnesotans to be forced to show a photo I.D. when they vote. It's backed by including Election Integrity Watch, Minnesota Majority and Minnesota North Star Tea Party Patriots.

Right before Election Day, the group went to court seeking an injunction that would allow them to bypass state election law and wear their badges. Federal judge Joan Ericksen turned them down, based on the law:

please id me ballcap.jpg
A person may not display campaign material, post signs, ask, solicit, or in any manner try to induce or persuade a voter within a polling place or within 100 feet of the building in which a polling place is situated, or anywhere on the public property on which a polling place is situated, on primary or election day to vote for or refrain from voting for a candidate or ballot question. A person may not provide political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia to be worn at or about the polling place on the day of a primary or election. A political badge, political button, or other political insignia may not be worn at or about the polling place on primary or election day.

Undeterred, the "Please ID Me" vigilantes showed up anyway, confronting election officials trying to enforce the law by moving into areas where they weren't allowed, and behaving aggressively. By the middle of hte day, election judges were having "firm words" with the vigilantes.

Two weeks later, after the elections, they sued county election officials claiming their constitutional rights had been violated. One plaintiff also tried to make the case, unsuccessfully, that she was prevented from voting.

Rubbish, judge Ericksen ruled on Friday.

"Minnesota's strong interest in creating a neutral zone where individuals can vote free from external influence is reasonably furthered by restricting the expression of political views within the narrow confines of the polling place," she said. State law, "on its face, is neutral. It applies to any political badge or button, no matter what view it espouses."

And Ericksen didn't stop there. She dismissed the lawsuit "with prejudice," which means the plaintiffs can never bring the the lawsuit before the court again.

Related:

My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
goddessecouture
goddessecouture

Was there an issue on the ballot regarding showing ID to vote? If not, the law does not apply in this case. It only applies to political speech meant to influence for a vote for or against a candidate or ballot question up for vote in that particular election and was never meant to be applied to refer to just any opinion under the sun.

dusanmal
dusanmal

Existing law is good, there should be no political speech on/about polling places.However, this particular decision is terrible. What is "political speech" (...political badge, political button, or other political insignia... as law states) that is regulated? Under this decision it can be anything. Someone could raise lawsuit if someone wore t-shirt, cap,... with anything written on it according to this decision. Mickey Mouse in train engineer costume - AAA JUDGE! HE PROMOTES UNIONS! POLITICAL! IT'S TEAMSTERS! "John 3:14" on the cap? - AAA JUDGE! RIGHT WINGER! POLITICAL! ... "Political speech" must be defined as containing direct reference to one of participating parties or candidates. Not something someone might perceive as politics. Someone can be found for any "speech" to interpret it as political. Doubt must always be on the side of more speech allowed, not less. If in doubt, it is not political speech but free speech. Plenty of doubt here as it came to the Court...

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

That's OK.A temporary win for those in support of fraud.You WILL need a valid photo ID to vote in the state of Minnesota within the next coming elections.Polls show 80% of people believe one should have to show a valid photo ID to vote.

08/06 - Rasmussen Question: Should Minnesota voters be required to show photo identification such as a drivers license before being allowed to vote? Yes=83% No=13% Other=4%

10/08 - Rasmussen Question: Should Minnesota voters be required to show photo identification such as a drivers license before being allowed to vote? Yes=73% No=20% Other=7%

12/09 - Wilson Research Question: Do you favor a law that would require voters to show a state- or federally-issued photo identification before voting? Yes=80% No=16% Other=4%

01/10 - Decision ResourcesQuestions: Should Minnesota voters be required to show a valid photo identification at the polls on Election Day? Yes=84% No=12% Other=4%

Average over the last few years- Yes= 80%No= 15% Other= 5%

Pmonk
Pmonk

Except that the candidates being voted on are either for or against the issue just like anything else, its the same reason why you can't show up with pro-choice signs even if abortion isn't mentioned on the ballot.

That being said it is pretty dumb that no state id is required to vote in Minnesota.

BDS
BDS

Rubbish. Care to point out specifically where in the law where your interpretation of political speech is explicitly laid out in the terms you defined? Even if one were to accept your unsubstantiated definition, how can you credibly claim there's doubt here as to whether or not this is a political issue when it's an issue that the Legislature is currently attempting to put ON THE BALLOT in the next election?

Zurick
Zurick

 Can you link me to those polls? I can't seem to find the source.

Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson

Let a state representative or a representative of the voting place be the one to ask for ID. These "Please ID Me" people have no right to get involved.

goddessecouture
goddessecouture

The law says "...on primary or election day to vote for or refrain from voting for a candidate or ballot question." Meaning in THIS ELECTION. An issue that may or may not be on the ballot in THE NEXT ELECTION does not fall under this law - at least, that is not the intent of the law and it would require a very broad interpretation to twist it to mean so.

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

Here are the Rasmussenson's polls -http:  //  www.  rasmussenreports.  com /content/search?SearchText=voter%20id(take out the spaces, citypages wont allow links)

MnVoter
MnVoter

Who the hell are you to decide what rights anyone has? When THOSE people in the Unions, those people in the white house, those people (mostly democrats) across the country got involved in Wisconsin legislation did you complain about those people not having rights? Federal judge Joan Ericksen turned them down, based on the law: Next election I will request election judges to toss any Union Jacket, SEIU shirt, teacher stickered nitwit out of the polling area. They will be violating my rights. I can't wait for the fun to begin.

Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson

MnVoter,

we all have the right to protest...including unions.

none of us have the right to intimidate users at a voting poll. If someone does, then by all means report it. While I agree 100% that ID should be required...let the proper people make that decision.

Eugene Debs
Eugene Debs

Who the hell are you to decide what rights anyone does not have? I would almost be offended by your comments if I were not totally convinced that they are satire. Good work. Keep up the comedy.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...