Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
'Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: February 28, 2018
Decided: June 14, 2018
Outcome
Eighth Circuit reversed
Vote
7 - 2
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Stephen Breyer


Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on February 28, 2018. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

The issue in this case was whether Minnesota's statute prohibiting political apparel at polling stations was unconstitutional.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Groups in Minnesota argued that a Minnesota statute prohibiting clothing with political speech at polling places violated their First Amendment rights.
  • The issue: Does the Minnesota statute barring political apparel at polling places violate the First Amendment?
  • The outcome: On a vote of 7 - 2, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, ruling that the Minnesota statute violated the First Amendment.[2]


    • In brief: Several plaintiffs in Minnesota filed suit to challenge a Minnesota statute that prohibited the wearing of clothing with political messages or logos at active polling places. They argued that the prohibition violated their rights under the First Amendment. A federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit disagreed, finding that the statute was constitutional. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.[1]

    You can review the lower court's opinion here.[1]

    Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about the scope of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in the context of polling places.[1] Generally, the right to free speech ensures the right to express political beliefs, including by wearing clothing with political slogans, badges, or insignia. However, under earlier United States Supreme Court cases, states may prohibit some measure of political expression inside polling places when voting is underway. The issue in this case was how far a state can constitutionally go in prohibiting political expression in polling places. Specifically, the issue was whether a state could ban not only outright political endorsements of a candidate but also political expression that did not make reference to a candidate or issue on the ballot that day.

    The Minnesota statute at issue was Statute § 211B.11. Minnesota Statute § 211B.11 "prohibits wearing a 'political badge, political button, or other political insignia . . . at or about the polling place on primary or election day.”[1][3] The statute "broadly prohibits any material 'designed to influence and impact voting,' or 'promoting a group with recognizable political views,' even when the apparel makes no reference to any issue or candidate on the ballot."[4] Under the statute, a person who wore political apparel to a polling place was still allowed to vote. However, if the person refused to cover or remove the item, an election judge was to "record the person's name and address for potential misdemeanor prosecution."[1]

    The issue was whether the prohibition of all political apparel violated the right to free speech under the First Amendment.[1]

    Case background

    The Minnesota Voters Alliance and several other groups and individuals, including the Minnesota Northstar Tea Party Patriots and the Election Integrity Watch (collectively referred to here as Minnesota Voters Alliance or MVA), filed suit against the Minnesota Secretary of State and other elections officials in Minnesota. The plaintiffs claimed that Minnesota Statute § 211B.11 violated their rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. They alleged that the statute chilled their free speech rights because it prohibited them from wearing apparel with Tea Party logos to their polling places.[1][5]

    The district court ruled that the statute did not violate the First Amendment, and the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

    Panel opinion

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Eighth Circuit first cited United States Supreme Court opinions establishing the right of states to regulate political speech at polling places:

    “ A polling place is a nonpublic forum. Restrictions on speech in a nonpublic forum are constitutionally valid if viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose which the forum at issue serves. A state has a legitimate interest in ‘maintain[ing] peace, order and decorum’ in the polling place and a compelling interest in ‘protecting voters from confusion and undue influence’ and ‘preserving the integrity of its election process.[1][6][7] ”


    In this case, the court concluded, the regulation was viewpoint neutral--it did not focus on or single out a particular type of political speech--and facially reasonable. The plaintiffs had also argued that Tea Party apparel was not political speech because the Tea Party was not a political party. The court dismissed that argument and concluded that the regulation was reasonable:

    “ [The plaintiff's] argument fails to address that the statute and Policy prohibit more than election-related apparel. The statute and Policy prohibit 'political' apparel, defined as: 'Material promoting a group with recognizable political views.' Even if Tea Party apparel is not election-related, it is not unreasonable to prohibit it in a polling place. In order to ensure a neutral, influence-free polling place, all political material is banned. To demonstrate that the Tea Party is political, Minnesota provided polling data and media coverage supporting the public perception that the Tea Party is political. It also noted that as of July 2010, the Tea Party was a recognized caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. [The plaintiff] offers nothing to rebut this evidence that the Tea Party has recognizable political views... Banning apparel with [the plaintiff's] name and logo is reasonable because it is wholly consistent with the [state]’s legitimate interest in preserving polling place decorum and neutrality.[1][7] ”


    MVA then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

    Petitioner's challenge

    The petitioner, Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA), challenged the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. MVA argued that the Minnesota statute banning political apparel at polling places violates the First Amendment.[4]

    Certiorari granted

    On June 13, 2017, the petitioner initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted petitioner's request for certiorari on November 13, 2017. Argument in the case was held on February 28, 2018.[4]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Minnesota election law forbids voters from wearing political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia at the polling place. See Minn. Stat. § 211B.ll. The ban broadly prohibits any material 'designed to influence and impact voting,' or 'promoting a group with recognizable political views,' even when the apparel makes no reference to any issue or candidate on the ballot. The Eighth Circuit, aligned with the Fifth and D.C. Circuits, invoked Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), to hold that a state can impose a 'speechfree zone' without infringing on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. There is deep tension between those decisions and the reasoning in decisions of the Fourth and Seventh Circuits, which hold that the First Amendment does not allow a state to prohibit all political speech. The question presented is: Is Minnesota Statute Section 211B.ll, which broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place, facially overbroad under the First Amendment?"[4]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    Decision

    On a vote of 7 - 2, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, ruling that the Minnesota statute violated the First Amendment.[2]

    Majority opinion

    Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.[2]

    Roberts ruled, "Minnesota’s ban on wearing any 'political badge, political button, or other political insignia' plainly restricts a form of expression within the protection of the First Amendment." However, he continued, because the ban applied only to polling places, the statute "implicates our 'forum based’ approach for assessing restrictions that the government seeks to place on the use of its property.” He wrote that polling places are nonpublic forums in which the government has some freedom to restrict free speech rights. Therefore, as an initial matter, "in light of the special purpose of the polling place itself, Minnesota may choose to prohibit certain apparel there because of the message it conveys, so that voters may focus on the important decisions immediately at hand." But the prohibition, he concluded, must be clearer than the statute in this case.[2]

    “ The State must draw a reasonable line. Although there is no requirement of narrow tailoring in a nonpublic forum, the State must be able to articulate some sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out. Here, the unmoored use of the term 'political' in the Minnesota law, combined with haphazard interpretations the State has provided in official guidance and representations to this Court, cause Minnesota’s restriction to fail even this forgiving test . . . We do not doubt that the vast majority of election judges strive to enforce the statute in an evenhanded manner, nor that some degree of discretion in this setting is necessary. But that discretion must be guided by objective, workable standards. Without them, an election judge’s own politics may shape his views on what counts as “political.” . . . If a State wishes to set its polling places apart as areas free of partisan discord, it must employ a more discernible approach than the one Minnesota has offered here.[2][10][7] ”


    Dissent by Justice Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority's judgment, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer. Sotomayor argued that, because the case concerned a state law, the Supreme Court should have allowed Minnesota state courts to rule on the constitutionality of the statute first. She wrote, "Especially where there are undisputedly many constitutional applications of a state law that further weighty state interests, the Court should be wary of invalidating a law without giving the State’s highest court an opportunity to pass upon it."[2]

    “ I disagree . . . with the Court’s decision to declare Minnesota’s political apparel ban unconstitutional on its face because, in its view, the ban is not 'capable of reasoned application,' when the Court has not first afforded the Minnesota state court a reasonable opportunity to pass upon and construe the statute. I would certify this case to the Minnesota Supreme Court for a definitive interpretation of the political apparel ban under Minn. Stat. §211B.11(1) (Supp. 2017), which likely would obviate the hypothetical line drawing problems that form the basis of the Court’s decision today.[2][7] ”


    She concluded, "Because the Court declines to take the obvious step of certification in this case, I respectfully dissent."[2]

    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky" Opinion, February 28, 2017
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 United States Supreme Court, "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky Opinion," June 14, 2018
    3. ↑ The internal quotations are of the statute itself.
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky" Question Presented, November 13, 2017
    5. ↑ The plaintiffs also raised other claims, but those are not at issue in this appeal.
    6. ↑ Internal quotations and citations omitted
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, argued February 28, 2018
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, argued February 28, 2018
    10. ↑ Internal citations omitted.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Minnesota_Voters_Alliance_v._Mansky&oldid=8891492"