Case Background
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is a challenge to a state law prohibiting political apparel in polling places. In 2010, several local Tea Party groups in Minnesota formed the Election Integrity Watch coalition to detect purported in-person voter fraud at the polls. As part of their poll-monitoring, they distributed buttons for voters to wear to the polls asking poll workers to “Please I.D. Me,” as well as t-shirts displaying the Tea Party name and various slogans. Minnesota did not and does not have a voter I.D. law (in fact, the voters of Minnesota rejected a constitutional amendment that would have added an I.D. requirement to the state constitution).
Minnesota statute § 211B.11(1) prohibits the wearing of any “political badge, political button, or other political insignia at or about the polling place” on election days. Five days before the 2010 election, the Petitioners, a group of individuals and organizations involved with Election Integrity Watch, sued to secure an injunction against enforcement of the statute. In response, state and local election administrators issued an election day policy instructing poll workers to prohibit, among other things, apparel promoting candidates, parties, or ballot questions; apparel intended to impact the voting process (like the “Please I.D. Me” buttons); and apparel promoting any group with “recognizable political views.” The policy stated that that individuals wearing such apparel would be asked to temporarily remove it or cover it up; refusal to do so could constitute a misdemeanor (although under no circumstances would anyone be denied the right to vote).
Petitioners were unsuccessful in having enforcement of the statute enjoined. The case subsequently went back and forth between the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Certiorari was granted following the most recent ruling from the Eighth Circuit solely to address the question of whether Minn. Stat. § 211B.11(1) is facially overbroad and unconstitutional.
The Brennan Center for Justice, on behalf of itself, The League of Women Voters of the United States, and the League of Women Voters Minnesota, submitted an amicus brief arguing that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting apparel like the “Please I.D. Me” buttons designed to mislead voters and poll workers into believing identification is required to vote. Among other things, the brief marshals significant research showing that there is already considerable misunderstanding of voter identification rules on the part of the voters and poll workers—including the widespread mistaken belief that identification is required to vote even in states where it is not, which Petitioners’ buttons likely would have exacerbated. The brief goes on to argue that Respondents’ decision to bar Tea Party apparel was also permissible, and notes that any concerns about other theoretical applications of Respondents’ election day policy can be addressed without invalidating the underlying statute.
Brief
SCOTUSBlog Symposium Contribution
- Whose side is the First Amendment really on? (January 24, 2018)
U.S. Supreme Court
Jurisdictional Stage
- Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 3, 2017) (May 30, 2017)
- Brief of Respondents Joe Mansky, et al. in opposition filed. (September 1, 2017)
- Reply of Petitioners Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al. filed. (September 14, 2017)
Amicus Briefs in Support of Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement
- Cato Institute, Rutherford Institute, ReasonFoundation, and Individual Rights Foundation in Support of Appellants (July 3, 2017)
- Center for Competitive Politics in Support of Appellants (July 3, 2017)
- The American Civil Rights Union and Association for Government Accountability (July 3, 2017)
Merits Stage
- Brief of Petitioners on the Merits (January 5, 2018)
- Brief of Respondents (February 5, 2018)
Amicus Briefs in Support of Appellants
- Goldwater Institute in Support of Petitioners (January 10, 2018)
- Justice and Freedom Fund in Support of Petitioners (January 11, 2018)
- CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Reason Foundation, and Individual Rights Foundation in Support of Petitioners (January 11, 2018)
- James Madison Center for Free Speech, Inc. in Support of Petitioners (January 11, 2018)
- Southeastern Legal Foundation, Beacon Center of Tennessee, and Mississippi Justice Institute in Support of Petitioners (January 12, 2018)
- American Civil Rights Union and Association for Government Accountability in Support of Petitioners (January 12, 2018)
- Institute for Free Speech in Support of Petitioners (January 12, 2018)
- American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota in Support of Petitioners (January 12, 2018)
Amicus Briefs in Support of Respondents
- States of Tennessee, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah (February 12, 2018)
- Campaign Legal Center (February 12, 2018)
- National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, and International Municipal Lawyers Association (February 12, 2018)
Related Coverage
- Daily Journal Podcast: Speech-Free Polling Places? (March 2, 2018)
- Voters report problems with long lines, confusion over voter ID laws (November 6, 2012)
- Many Americans unaware of their states’ voter ID laws (October 24, 2016)
- Voter ID: Who Has Them? Who Shows Them? (November 1, 2013)
- Texas Voter ID Law Led to Fears and Failures in 2016 Election (May 2, 2017)
- Where’s the Tea Party? An Examination of the Tea Party’s Voting Behavior in the House of Representatives (April 4, 2016)
- Questions and Answers about the Voter ID Study: Estimating the Effect of Voter ID on Nonvoters in Wisconsin in the 2016 Presidential Election (September 25, 2017)
- Supporting Information: Estimating the Effect of Voter ID on Nonvoters in Wisconsin in the 2016 Presidential Election (September 25, 2017)
- Striving to Protect our Vote in 2016 (December 1, 2016)
- The 2014 Election Protection Report: Democracy Should Not Be This Hard (February 12, 2015)
- Who Asks for Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion (October 2014)
- State Constitutional Amendments Considered (2016)
- Voter Challengers (August 30, 2012)
- Wisconsin voters are confused over ID law, professor tells election officials (December 12, 2017)
- 2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections: Final Report (2009)
- New voter ID rules, other election changes could cause confusion (October 19, 2016)
- Effects of Identification Requirements on Voting: Evidence from the Experiences of Voters on Elections Day (January 1, 2009)
- The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (March 2011)
- Dangers of “Ballot Security” Operations: Preventing Intimidation, Discrimination, and Disruption (August 31, 2016)