SCOTUS won't hear case brought by MN conservatives upset about voting dress code

Categories: Law
voter fraud mpls.jpg
@stmichael36 on Twitter
The folks who brought you this bus stop ad wanted to bring their case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by a group of Minnesota conservatives regarding a state election law barring voters from wearing political attire to polling places on Election Day.

SEE ALSO: Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath on voter ID failure: "Voter fraud likely played a role"

According to a Christian Science Monitor report, SCOTUS "took the action in a one-line order without comment. It lets stand a federal appeals court decision upholding the statute."

The case dates back to 2010, when the pro-voter ID group Minnesota Majority sued the state after election officials barred voters from casting ballots while wearing the group's buttons, shirts, and hats, which were adorned with messages like "Please I.D. Me," "Don't Tread on Me," and "We'll Remember in November."

But the lawsuit didn't have any success as it worked its way through the system. It was thrown out by a federal judge, and the judge's ruling was then upheld by an appeals court that ruled polling places aren't locations open for public debate and all the 1st Amendment protections it entails.

But in the petition where he asked SCOTUS to take up the case, Minneapolis lawyer Erick Kaardal argued the state law is a step toward a 1984-like future.

"The [appeals court's] decision... eviscerates any protection of the right to self-expression in the polling place and requires all individuals to essentially wear colorless coveralls to avoid prosecution for wearing apparel the government, with unfettered discretion, deems political," Kaardal wrote.

Violators of the statute face up to a $300 fine.

-- Follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter at @atrupar. Got a tip? Drop him a line at arupar@citypages.com.


My Voice Nation Help
7 comments
barbertj23
barbertj23

Group A:
We want to do something clearly designed to stir up a little controversy and cause trouble to promote our own goals in a very narrow location we shouldn't be doing that sort of thing at.


Response:
No, stop that.

Group A:
IT'S LIKE 1984 NOW!!!

digitalprotocol
digitalprotocol topcommenter

if this is a statute, i plan on wearing a shirt that says "FUCK POLITICS" next go round

Onan
Onan

What are "colorless" overalls? Are they transparent? If so, would I be arrested for going "commando" and wearing these transparent garments?

These questions need answering.

MicheleBachmann
MicheleBachmann topcommenter

@digitalprotocol WOW WHAT A FUCKING BADASS YOU ARE SUPER DORK!    You aren't afraid "THE MAN" is going to take you down for wearing your stupid and pointless t shirt.    Just imagine how you will change everything standing in line with your t shirt on!    All the idiots waiting in line will be like "this super badass has blown my fucking mind."   They will probably start yelling like "hey super badass what is your name because I'm writing you in for fucking President."   Then some smart nerd will be all like its 2014 we can't elect super badass here for 2 more years.  They will get so pissed they will probably like attack the government and demand you be installed as dictator for life.   Fucking dork.  

MicheleBachmann
MicheleBachmann topcommenter

@Onan I always dress nice and simple.  Jeans and a black t shirt or something you know?   That way when I go back to the ACORN truck, change my face Mission Impossible style,  and vote 150-200 times for Obama I don't have to change my clothes.  

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...