Minnesota Majority v. Joe Mansky
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4553
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- EIW, comprised of Minnesota Majority, Minnesota Voters Alliance, and North Star Tea Party Patriots, sought to reform elections and wore campaign-themed apparel before the 2010 election.
- Minnesota Stat. § 211B.11, subd. 1 prohibited political badges or insignia at polling places, with the third sentence at issue banning such items within or about the polling place; violation was a petty misdemeanor.
- A district policy before Election Day defined political materials and instructed judges to have wearers cover or remove items, recording names if refused, but allowing voting to proceed.
- EIW alleged enforcement of the statute and policy chilled speech; several members were asked to cover/remove items or were recorded or delayed.
- District court dismissed the facial challenges; this court reviews de novo the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and considers the policy as embraced by pleadings.
- The panel affirms part, reverses part, and remands; the concurrence dissents on whether the third sentence is facially unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 211B.11, subd. 1 is facially unconstitutional | EIW argues overbreadth against the third sentence. | Minnesota contends the provision is viewpoint-neutral and narrowly tailored for polling-place decorum. | Facial overbreadth claim rejected; third sentence deemed permissible in nonpublic forum. |
| Whether the statute and Policy survive as-applied challenges to EIW | EIW claims the policy and statute were applied to chill speech about campaigns. | Defendants contend application was reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. | As-applied challenge to be analyzed on remand; record insufficient for summary judgment. |
| Whether there is an equal protection violation from selective enforcement | EIW alleges selective enforcement against supporters of certain viewpoints. | Policy allows discretion but does not itself sanction selective enforcement. | No equal protection violation; no causation shown; challenged conduct not shown to be caused by a policy. |
| Whether vagueness challenges were waived | EIW waived vagueness challenge by not briefing; not pursued further. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (overbreadth and facial challenges framework)
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (overbreadth and compelled sweep discussion)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (polling-place restrictions can survive strict scrutiny near polling places)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (nonpublic forum restrictions must be reasonable)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (forum analysis for government property speech restrictions)
- Embry v. Lewis, 215 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2000) (polling-area as nonpublic forum; limits on speech)