Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota's voter clothing law
U.S. Court Watch
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Minnesota law that barred voters in the state from wearing a wide range of political hats,
T-shirts and pins to the polls.
Minnesota had defended its law as a reasonable restriction that keeps order at polling places and prevents voter intimidation. But the
justices ruled 7-2 that the state's law is too broad, violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "if a State wishes to set its polling places apart as areas free of partisan discord, it must employ a
more discernible approach than the one Minnesota has offered here."
Most states have laws restricting what voters can wear when they cast ballots, but Minnesota's law was one of the broadest. It barred
voters from casting a ballot while wearing clothing with the name of a candidate or political party. Also not allowed: clothing that
references an issue on the ballot or promotes a group with recognizable political views. A National Rifle Association T-shirt or shirt with
the text of the Second Amendment wouldn't be allowed, for example, according to the lawyer who argued the case for the state.
Roberts noted that Minnesota, like other states, had sought to balance a voter's ability to "engage in political discourse" with the ability
to "exercise his civic duty in a setting removed from the clamor and din of electioneering."
"While that choice is generally worthy of our respect, Minnesota has not supported its good intentions with a law capable of reasoned
application," he wrote.
It is unclear exactly how many states the ruling could affect beyond Minnesota. Both Minnesota and the group challenging the state's
law had said there are about 10 states with laws like Minnesota's, though they disagreed significantly on which ones, agreeing only on
Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Vermont.
The case before the Supreme Court dates back to 2010 and involves a dispute that began over tea party T-shirts and buttons with the
words "Please I.D. Me," a reference to legislation then under discussion in Minnesota that would have required residents to show photo
identification to vote. The legislation ultimately didn't become law.
Pointing to the state's statute, Minnesota officials said before the election that neither the tea party T-shirts nor those buttons would be
permitted at the polls. In response, a group of voters and organizations sued.
Related listings
-
Judge to weigh Louisiana AG’s challenge to city jail’s ‘sanctuary’ policy
U.S. Court Watch 04/22/2025Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill is pushing forward with her efforts to force Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson to drop a longtime policy that generally prohibits deputies from directly engaging in federal immigration enforcement within the c...
-
Ex-UK lawmaker charged with cheating in election betting scandal
U.S. Court Watch 04/11/2025A former Conservative lawmaker and 14 others have been charged with cheating when placing bets on the timing of Britain’s general election last year, the Gambling Commission said Monday.Craig Williams was one of several people who had been inve...
-
Turkish court orders key Erdogan rival jailed pending trial on corruption charges
U.S. Court Watch 03/25/2025A court formally arrested the mayor of Istanbul, a key rival to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, on Sunday and ordered him jailed pending the outcome of a trial on corruption charges.Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu was detained following a raid on his residence ...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.