Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Joe Mansky, 849 F.3d 749

Background

Plaintiffs (Minnesota Majority, Minnesota Voters Alliance, Minnesota Northstar Tea Party Patriots, and Election Integrity Watch) sued Minnesota election officials challenging Minn. Stat. § 211B.11, which bans wearing “political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia” at or about polling places on election day.
Minnesota provided an Election Day Policy defining political material to include issue-oriented material and groups with recognizable political views (examples: Tea Party, MoveOn.org); election judges could ask violators to remove/cover items and record names if they refused.
The plaintiffs claimed the statute violated the First Amendment as-applied (particularly to Tea Party apparel) and Equal Protection (selective enforcement); this court previously reversed dismissal of the as-applied First Amendment claim and remanded for further fact development.
On remand the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants; plaintiffs appealed and this panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
The court treated polling places as nonpublic forums; restrictions must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable given the forum’s purpose (protecting order, voter integrity, and preventing undue influence).
The court found the statute and Policy viewpoint neutral and reasonable, and held plaintiffs failed to produce specific facts creating a genuine issue that Tea Party apparel is non-political or that enforcement was selectively applied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether banning Tea Party apparel as applied violated the First Amendment	Tea Party apparel expresses general philosophy, not election-related advocacy, and Tea Party is not an official Minnesota political party	Statute bans all political material (not only election-specific) to preserve a neutral, influence-free polling place; Tea Party has recognizable political views	No violation; statute and Policy are viewpoint neutral and reasonably applied to Tea Party apparel
Whether evidence showed selective enforcement / Equal Protection problem	Enforcement targeted Tea Party apparel while other political logos/colors were ignored, causing chill and unequal treatment	Plaintiffs offered only anecdotal/speculative evidence; no specific facts showing systematic selective enforcement	No genuine factual dispute; selective enforcement claim failed for lack of specific evidence
Whether polling places are nonpublic forums, affecting the standard of review	Plaintiffs argued application must still respect First Amendment protections	Defendants: polling places are nonpublic forums; restrictions must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable	Court treated polling places as nonpublic forums and applied viewpoint-neutrality and reasonableness test
Whether plaintiffs met their burden at summary judgment to create a factual dispute	Plaintiffs: remand permitted development of record to show unreasonableness/selectivity	Defendants: record (polling data, media) supports Tea Party being political; plaintiffs must present specific contrary facts	Plaintiffs failed to present specific facts; summary judgment for defendants affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 708 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2013) (prior panel decision addressing forum and initial First Amendment analysis)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and nonmoving party’s burden)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial)
Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (forum classification and standards for speech restrictions in nonpublic forums)
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966) (state interest in maintaining order in elections)
Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (state’s compelling interest in protecting voters from confusion and undue influence)