Tag: Overbreadth doctrine

WASHINGTON — Overly broad state laws that ban wearing political messages inside polling places are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. During oral argument in February, state officials said the law had not been challenged until now. Chief Justice John Roberts issued the court's opinion, calling the state's effort to make polling places less clamorous admirable. Sotomayor had expressed support for the state law during oral argument in February, noting some people viewed "Please I.D. All 50 states regulate campaign advocacy in and around polling places for reasons most of the justices readily defended during oral argument. Federal district and appeals courts dismissed the complaints from Andrew Cilek and the Minnesota Voters Alliance, but the Supreme Court has been protective of free speech rights even when it disagrees with the message. The problem, Roberts said, is that Minnesota's prohibition doesn't specify what's allowed and what isn't, leaving too much up to the whim of temporary polling place officials. The case was one of several before the court this term that affect voting, which the justices have quarreled over for years following their landmark 5-4 decision in 2013 striking down a key section of the Voting Rights Act. Can a state prohibit voters from wearing a "Make America Great Again" or "#MeToo" T-shirt? And why would it be OK to herald First Amendment freedom of speech rights across one's chest, but not Second Amendment rights affecting firearms -- a differentiation Minnesota allowed?