General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Supreme Court Will Functionally Decide If You Can Wear Your #MAGA Hat To Vote
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/01/the-supreme-court-will-functionally-decide-if-you-can-wear-your-maga-hat-to-vote/Thats the very opening of the article and you can see that it is fatally flawed in the first sentence. The ban on T-shirts is not because they change the way people vote. Nobody is wearing a T-shirt to change somebodys mind.
Paragraph 1 in excerpt is responded to in paragraph 2, kind of confusing I know, read the article.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)Then wait till they get a load of the Halloween costumes my wife and I will be wearing to vote.
In thinking of myself wearing a Trump mask with a baby bonnet, diaper, and pacifier, and my wife with a big blond wig and stuffed bra as Stormy Daniels.
Initech
(100,028 posts)ProfessorGAC
(64,827 posts)Electioneering is prohibited and any sloganeering would fit the same description to me. If someone can't vote without a clear demonstration of their politics, it seems like blatant electioneering.
Courts may disagree, just my opinion. I know i wouldn't think to do it.
Gothmog
(144,884 posts)In 2008, the Houston Obama voter protection team circulated a wonderful legal memo on the use of toilet plungers as electioneering. A candidate bought a couple of hundred toilet plungers, put ribbons on them with McCain's name and tried to leave these plungers in the polling places. At the time, Joe the Plumber was big. We got the election officials to agree to ban these plungers as electioneering.
Being an election law/voter protection attorney can be amusing.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Clearly, people who wear clothing with political slogans to the polling place have it in mind to expose their message to other voters. So, such clothing is electioneering, and is prohibited.
On election day, go and vote. Wear clothing that does not carry a political message. You vote the way you wish. Leave others alone to do the same.
Minnesota is correct.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)The article author's flawed assertion notwithstanding, the Supreme Court decided a major "electioneering" case in 1992 ( Burson v. Freeman http://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/128/burson-v-freeman ) upholding Tennessee's 100 foot restriction.
And no, "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Manksy" isn't about MAGA hats (which are clearly campaign-related and won't be suddenly allowed by the Supreme Court) but about more subtle speech (as the article notes the specific items in question were the: "Dont Tread On Me shirt and Please I.D. Me button).
Retrograde
(10,127 posts)Then they can wear whatever they want - or even nothing at all. Plus, it leaves a paper record.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)in their district.
NO MATTER WHAT
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)I'd be so tempted to wear my pussyhat to the polls