•   
  •   
  •   

Offbeat U.S. top court voids Minnesota ban on voter political apparel

18:07  14 june  2018
18:07  14 june  2018 Source:   reuters.com

Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter registration purge policy

  Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter registration purge policy The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revived Ohio's contentious policy of purging infrequent voters from its registration rolls.Load Error

According to Reuters on Thursday, the US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot completely bar people from wearing T-shirts, buttons or other apparel

The court ruled 7-2 that Minnesota ’ s law, which dates back to 1912 and was intended to maintain decorum at polling sites, went too far in banning voters from wearing political apparel - without even defining what is meant by “ political .” But the justices left room for states to craft some sort of limits on

Visitors walk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016. © Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg Visitors walk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016. States cannot completely bar people from wearing T-shirts, buttons or other apparel bearing political messages in polling sites, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in an important free speech decision striking down a Minnesota law as unconstitutional.

The court, in the 7-2 ruling, said Minnesota's law, which dates back to 1912, went too far in banning political apparel but left room for states to limit what should be allowed in polling places and what should not. The justices sent the case back down to the lower court.

The Supreme Court’s decision on purging voters in Ohio is a boon to the GOP

  The Supreme Court’s decision on purging voters in Ohio is a boon to the GOP There’s been a heightened focus on efforts to purge people from voter rolls following the 2016 election, on both sides of the aisle.But there is no widespread voter fraud. There are, however, efforts to limit the ability to vote specifically to affect the electoral chances of the Democrats. There are also laws aimed at culling the voter rolls that have the effect of disenfranchising Democratic voters even if that may not be the actual intent. From a legal perspective, the difference between the latter two is important.

The Supreme Court endorsed the argument advanced by the conservative activists who challenged Minnesota ’ s law, finding that it ran afoul of the U . S . Constitution’ s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The justices issued the ruling against a backdrop of deepening political

The court , in the 7-2 ruling, said Minnesota ' s law, which dates back to 1912, went too far in banning voters from wearing political apparel but left room for states to craft some sort of limits on what should be allowed in polling places and what should not. Minnesota ' s law barred people from wearing

Minnesota has tried to promote voting "in a setting removed from the clamor and din of electioneering," conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. "While that choice is generally worthy of our respect, Minnesota has not supported its good intentions with a law capable of reasoned application."

Roberts was joined by the other four conservatives on the court as well as liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented from the decision.

Delaware, Kansas, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and South Carolina impose restrictions similar to Minnesota's.

The Supreme Court endorsed the argument advanced by the conservative activists who challenged Minnesota's law, finding that it ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

The justices issued the ruling against a backdrop of deepening political polarization in America. In another major ruling involving free speech at polling sites, the high court in 1992 upheld a Tennessee law that barring the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet (30 meters) of a polling place.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Kansas officials told to keep enforcing voter ID law that was ruled unconstitutional .
Kansas officials are continuing to enforce a proof of citizenship law that a federal judge recently deemed unconstitutional. The Topeka Capital-Journal reported Wednesday that staff for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has directed county clerks to continue requiring v oters to present documentary proof of citizenship.One county clerk said she was instructed to continue enforcing the policy "as we have been."Danedri Herbert, a spokeswoman for Kobach, told the news outlet that state officials still need time to fully understand the court's ruling on the law.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

This is interesting!