ÃÛÖ­ÏãÌÒ

Legal Principle at Issue

Does a state law that bans voters from wearing political apparel at polling places violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause?

Action

The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that the Minnesota law violated the First Amendment. In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court acknowledged that states can impose reasonable restrictions to maintain order at polling places; however, Minnesota's law was too vague and broad. The term "political" was not clearly defined and could include a wide range of expressions— like a shirt with a peace symbol or a union logo. Because of this vagueness, officials had too much leeway to enforce the law in an arbitrary or discriminatory way. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Breyer, who believed the Court should have allowed the Minnesota Supreme Court to clarify the law before striking it down.

Facts/Syllabus

Minnesota had a law prohibiting voters from wearing "political" apparel at polling places. The idea was to maintain "peace, order, and decorum" and prevent undue influence or intimidation during voting. The Minnesota Voters Alliance challenged the law, arguing that it violated the First Amendment by being overly broad and vague. They claimed that it wasn't clear what counted as "political" and that the law gave too much discretion to election officials to decide what apparel was acceptable.

Importance of Case

States can regulate speech at polling places, but they must do so with clear and specific guidelines. A law banning "political" apparel must define what counts as political to avoid violating free speech rights. This case set a precedent for how far states can go in restricting expression in the context of voting.