Voting for the president should be an exclusive endeavor. The vote for president is the only one for national office and thus should be accorded special considerations.
The vote for president should be uniformly universal. All ballots are alike. The one in Maine does not differ from the one in Hawaii. The election period is the same for all, lasting say at least one week. The opening and closing of the polls are derived from GMT not some local's whim, thus ensuring all polls open and close the same time across our vast country. There should be a blackout on any campaigning before the election, including especially mass media. In fact, there should be a moratorium on all campaigning. Nothing is learned. The only messages to be conveyed in the final throes of a campaign are detrimental, negative attacks designed to lower voter turnout.
This of course is not going to happen, probably never will because those in power want to remain so and they know the more citizens become involved the less their chances are staying in office long after senility has set in, ie. Ronnie Raygun. And yet, if the American people truly wanted change they could demand it. The problem is the American people do not seem to want much of anything.
DD
Manhattan
1
I must disagree with the 2-day vote, $10 bill, and end to exit polling (used more by candidates, who know exactly what time their voters hit each ward - early prediction and call missing voters at right time)
Surveyors for media have also learned how to ask better questions than they did in ‘16 for accurate answers.
Saturday is the ideal voting day as long as absentee/10 pm closings are in effect for Sabbath- observant Jews, better yet, make it a formal Friday holiday with absentee voting for observant Muslims if (must admit, don’t know their rules that well about Sabbath voting. A real holiday gets people in and tunes down the Sunday-Monday effect of Trump’s request Evangelicals use the pulpit IN VIOLATION OF SAME TAX CODE NY has charged his Foundation with violating.(a place if worship loses hyper-tax-exempt status if leader uses pulpit to push voters or issues in any way or a candidate.
Everything you’ve mentioned I disagree with, the Supreme Court has at some point, ruled very Unconstitutional.
Except for the 2-day vote! We have insane easy-early-voting-already its watch a debate 2 weeks out, no fact checking before ballot. 3 days to Make Sure Everyone now ignoring campaigns is a formula for fraud and demagoguery, & November surprise.
We should make voting easy, and generate excitement with a major-business-closing holiday (media outlets, convenience stores & gas stations, physicians and pharmacies & the like have to give time off to vote.
But don’t make it too easy,.
That's two for two the Court has gotten right on election laws. One can only hopes this signifies a trend.
So are the nannies in the Minnesota state legislature really arguing that I may be inappropriately swayed to vote for or against a candidate because I might catch sight of a political button worn by some other voter I don't even know and have never seen before in my life? Seriously, are Minnesotans that fickle? "I was going to vote for Candidate X, but just as I was about to mark the box, I noticed the guy next to me was wearing a T-shirt for Candidate Y, so I changed my mind."
Texas has a 50 foot perimeter thing for campaign signs outside the polling place. The poll I vote at is located on the first floor, glassed-in lobby of the local courthouse. I'm not blind. I can see each and every sign from the booth while I'm voting clear-as-day. I can say with confidence I've never been persuaded to vote for a candidate based on yard sign. The perimeter keeps the card pushers from collectively pouncing on voters at the door, but unless it's the candidate him/herself, an anonymous supporter handing me a card or wearing a button doesn't make a difference.
If as a society we really wanted people to vote, we would have two days of voting, make it on the weekend, ban exit polling (or its dissemination over licensed communication if an outright ban turns out to be unconstitutional), and, perhaps, give everyone who votes a ten dollar bill.
I would also make early and mail voting allowed only for the week before the election (except for the armed forces stationed overseas). Early voting merely encourages people to ignore possibly relevant late-breaking information, while encouraging voting according to one's predetermined, largely echo chamber suppositions.
2
I'm just going to wear blue. All blue, all the time.
No surprise as the supreme court is beholden to King trump. The fascists are tightening the noose while Americans watch cat videos on their phones
1
"Minnesota’s law, similar to ones in about nine other states, is quite broad. It says that “a political badge, political button or other political insignia may not be worn at or about a polling place on primary or Election Day.”
As enforced by election officials, the law bans even general political messages on apparel, like support for gun rights or labor unions."
Wow, what a bunch of tyrants. Who is the government to tell citizens what they can wear at a polling place? Where in the First Amendment is it written or implied that such a restriction is permissible? It doesn't exist and all restrictions on this amendment and others should require proponents to use Article V of the constitution to pass them. Want to be a tyrant, go before the public and make your case. Good luck!
I'm not sure about everyone else, but, nobody is forcing me to look at what others are wearing at a polling place. I pay zero attention with the exception of the occasional attractive female who through her choice of clothing (or lack thereof) may be looking for it. Therefore it has zero effect on how I vote. I go in and do my business as fast as possible and leave. All these laws should be struck down. A person shouldn't have to be a constitutional lawyer who read thousands of pages of case law to know and exercise their rights. In that case we might as well not even have them.
During the oral arguments, the MN lawyer, in response to pointed questions from the justices, maintained that a T-shirt emblazoned with the First Amendment would be allowed into the polling place, but not a Second Amendment T-shirt.
Yet my friends who work the polls in PA tell me that in that state open carry of assault rifles is permitted in polling places (which makes those workers extremely nervous). What is wrong with this picture? Hint: it's not a Ben and Jerry's tee shirt or my Eagles logo cap.
5
As an aside, I disagree with the two dissenters. Asking the Minnesota Supreme Court for a 'definitive interpreation' of the law is tantamount to the Court authoring a new law rather than ruling upon one through legislative procedures.
Before Trump, I was a Republican. When I was voting in the 2016 primary, we had long lines and a couple of young kids were walking near the line with Cruz buttons on. Some Trump supporters in line next to me, Grandma and Grandpa types, lit into those poor little kids about how they were going to get arrested and how evil Cruz was. Pretty disgusting. Pretty revealing of what Rupert Murdoch and Robert Mercer have done to a lot of Americans, too.
If we as a people are so stupid as to be to be swayed by last second advertising we deserve the chains and shackles whoever is elected by ths process decides we should wear.
It comes as a relief to know our "Supreme" Court is no smarter than the rest of us. The fly in the ointment is they may be as dumb.
Do right Vote Left and never for Republicans or Kirsten Gillebrand.
Anything goes in the name of free speech. No space is sacred in the name of free speech. The intimidation of the majority is fine and dandy because for free speech.
1
The Supreme Court is on a roll with horrible decisions this June. I am still upset that Obama did not get a chance to fill the open spot.
I am hoping for a backlash to this and much more in November. Go Beto!
The same standard that the Supreme Court applies to allowing guns everywhere (even churches and schools) but not allowed in its chamber and outside of a ''buffer zone'' should be applied to voting stations and advertisements for anything. (to adhere to a buffer zone as well)
Correct ?
1
"the court acknowledged the value of decorum and solemn deliberation"
The Roberts Court has no values, other than advancing a rancid form of conservatism. Decorum? Solemn deliberation? Meh...
What would happen if someone walked up with an exposed TeaParty or Walk4Life tattoo?
“Casting a vote is a weighty civic act, akin to a jury’s return of a verdict, or a representative’s vote on a piece of legislation,” the chief justice wrote. “It is a time for choosing, not campaigning. The state may reasonably decide that the interior of the polling place should reflect that distinction.”
That's really dumb. The chief justice believes that people go into a voting precinct to decide for whom they'll vote? And a shirt will persuade them to vote one way or another? It is definitely NOT a time for choosing. I'd say people who wait until they get to the voting place to decide should not be allowed to vote.
2
This is consistent with existing 1st A. law. The statute was void for vagueness.
Since it's clear some of the commenters didn't even glance at the article (one commenter asked what prompted the law, even though the article explicitly spells it out):
SCOTUS struck down the law because it was arbitrary and inconsistent, and specifically similar laws that were okay.
But the laws aren’t - most say simply partisan/issue “speech” including printed articles ate prohibited within n feet of the polling place.
Vote by mail.
Don't let others do your thinking for you.
Never ends well.
I look forward to a sea of "Dump Trump" tee shirts and hats at the polls this fall :-)
Voting, while being a right, should still require some degree of respectable decorum. It is likely one of the top 3 things 99% will do as citizens, the other two being serving on a jury and serving in the armed forces. It is serious business and your attire should reflect that seriousness, however your culture depicts working at a serious activity. Unless you are a grad student at the Clown Academy, dressing to be provocative or funny does not equate to seriousness in any culture of which I am aware.
Still the Court was probably right. Rights carry special weight. Just chalk it up to one more instance where we cannot have nice things because of the buffoons among us.
The polling place is as sacred to maintaining the Rule of Law as the courtroom.
Decorum should be observed, including simply removing buttons or tossing a jacket over a T-shirt.
What’s next? Electioneering by party election monitors INSIDE a polling place?
As it is, allowing places of worship to be used as polling places, or, for that matter, any private facility including veterans’ halls decorated with a past or present office holder, on the ballot or not - but identified with a party, autographed, the guy standing next to the office seeker/party rep, the organization president, often a key community figure.
No, the room where balloting occurs must be partisan-free, and that should include voters as well.
But I can just see the Purple Party, both the blue and red, handing out vests to folks heading into the polling place, picking them up as voters exit for reuse.
This is a bad decision fraught with potential for abuse - suits and ties, and the female equivalents, are required in many a court room. Why NOT neutrality in clothing, and speech, when voting?
Have there been cases where there were frequent disruptions at polling place because someone was wearing an item of clothing with some kind of political message? If there were not, what prompted these kinds of laws?
But still, regardless of the genesis these anti-speech laws, I applaud the court. What is odd, is that two justices appear in favor of the Minnesota law.
1
As a polling place manager in my state, I think the Supreme Court got this one wrong. Maintaining the decorum of the polling place by asking citizens to forego political hats, clothing, etc. is not a bad thing. The polling place, after all, IS a different space. The Court, for example, suspends the Second Amendment right to bear arms in the courts. They do so in recognition that there is a time and place for the Second Amendment to hold sway. Same with freedom of speech which, the Court will acknowledge, they have said is not absolute and is subject to reasonable limits.
18
You have your ideas of what does and does not "maintain the decorum of the polling place". Are you sure your ideas are the same as the other polling managers in your state?
The court is not saying that there should be no restrictions whatsoever. They're saying that leaving the restrictions so vague that "the decorum of the polling place" may be enforced completely differently in one place or another based on differing interpretations of the regulations is a problem.
You should read the opinion. The court more than recognizes that such restrictions are generally legitimate and constitutionally proper. It's problem with Minnesota's law was its breadth and and vagueness; it essentially said "go write a clear, less broad law like most other state have done."
1
Pardon my cynicism, but would the decision have been the same if the plaintiff had worn a shirt that said "Impeach Trump" to the polls?
15
I like a total ban with only standard apparel logos only. SCOTUS is opening the door for full election issue and candidate advertising.
11
Mr Peabody, the problem with standard apparel logos is that corporate emblems or slogans for such as Apple, Smith& Wesson, Chick-Fil-A, Wells Fargo, ExxonMobil, Uber, and most others could reasonably be construed to be advocating a political message inasmuch as they have distinct interests in candidates' positions and many substantive ballot measures.
1
How about voting by mail? No one can see what you are wearing and transportation to the polls or standing for hours in the heat, rain or snow is not a problem.
8
Nora M, the problems with voting by mail is two-fold. If it is the only way to vote, then it may be very difficult for those without a permanent address or have recently moved to get their ballot. Also, voting beforehand encourages people to make up their mind before all the relevant information may be in.
Personally, I believe if as a society we really wanted people to vote, we would have two days of voting, make it on the weekend, ban exit polling (or its dissemination over licensed communication if an outright ban turns out to be unconstitutional), and, perhaps, give everyone who votes a ten dollar bill.
1
Isn't it nice that we can wear most clothing to an election that has been gerrymandered to insulate politicians from voters and is financed through bribery and graft. Don't worry the Robert's Court is on the case.
20
When I went to vote in Lynchburg, VA last fall it was like running the gauntlet. It is like a circus rather than a democratic process. The justices are simply wrong.
16
"Like a circus"? American elections have _always_ been raucus, impolite, coarse, noisy, and messy. I might not especially like it, but that's us.
Now if only the Supreme Court would do away with gerrymandering, a much more sinister infringement on our voting rights than messages on T-shirts, caps, etc,. That would be a much more meaningful decision.
29
This will be an interesting decision to read vis-a-vis freedom of speech.
Most polling places I have seen prohibit electioneering within 100 feet of them.
How will the two now comport?
16
Great! Someone please quickly market "Not My President", "Stop The Con Don" and other destroy the Robber Baron hats, shirts, cups, pens and other democracy-saving devices.
How about "Make America TRUMP-FREE" again".
That is what will restore sanity and true democracy in OUR United States of America.
VOTE!
37
"There is no problem with banning items supporting or opposing candidates or ballot measures, he indicated."
Your items would be covered under the ruling and be disallowed. Read then post.
4
Trump wouldn't be a candidate in a 2018 election, or a ballot measure.
A "Hillary for Prison" wife beater should pass the test as well.
No need to scold others.
Seems sensible. The questions asked and answered by the State’s counsel suggests that there was no obvious, fair and consistent application of the rule.
18