Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. 1

Background

Minnesota law §211B.11(1) prohibits wearing a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” inside a polling place on Election Day; election judges enforce the ban and violators face administrative penalties or petty-misdemeanor prosecution.
Plaintiffs (Minnesota Voters Alliance, Andrew Cilek, et al.) sued shortly before the 2010 election claiming the apparel ban violated the First Amendment; counties issued an Election Day Policy listing examples of prohibited items (party/candidate names, ballot-question support/opposition, “issue oriented” material, and apparel promoting groups with recognizable political views).
Some voters were asked to conceal or remove items (e.g., “Please I.D. Me” buttons, Tea Party shirts); plaintiffs brought facial and as-applied challenges; lower courts dismissed the facial challenge and split on the as-applied claims; the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the facial claim.
The Court treated polling places as nonpublic forums for Election Day purposes and applied the nonpublic-forum reasonableness standard (content-based restrictions are allowed if reasonable and not an effort to suppress particular viewpoints).
The Court held Minnesota’s objective—keeping polling places free of campaigning and partisan disruption—is permissible (citing Burson), but the statute is unconstitutionally vague/indeterminate because it fails to give objective, workable standards for what counts as “political.”
The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, finding the statute’s breadth and the State’s ad hoc guidance (e.g., “electoral choices,” “groups with recognizable political views”) permit arbitrary enforcement by election judges and thus fail the nonpublic-forum reasonableness test; remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minnesota’s ban on "political" apparel inside polling places violates the First Amendment	The ban is a content-based restriction on protected speech (even if passive apparel) and is overbroad/vague on its face	The ban is a content-based but permissible restriction in a nonpublic forum and should be read to prohibit only messages about the electoral choices at issue	Polling places are nonpublic forums and States may exclude some campaign-related expression, but Minnesota’s law is unconstitutionally indeterminate as applied on its face because it lacks objective, workable standards
Whether the State’s purpose (keeping polling places free from campaigning/disruption) justifies the apparel ban	Purpose does not justify banning passive voter self-expression inside the polling place	The State’s interest in an "island of calm" at the moment of voting is legitimate and comparable to interests upheld in Burson	The State’s purpose is permissible and related to forum function, so a content-based exclusion could be reasonable if drawn with clearer standards
Whether the term "political" is sufficiently definable for reasonable enforcement	The term is vague and overbroad; enforcement would be arbitrary	The statute should be construed narrowly to cover only messages an objectively reasonable observer would see as relating to electoral choices on the ballot	The statute, as written and as explained in the State’s guidance, is too indeterminate to provide objective enforcement criteria and therefore fails
Whether the Court should certify statutory interpretation questions to the Minnesota Supreme Court before ruling	N/A (plaintiffs asked for relief)	The State argued certification could clarify the statute and avoid constitutional ruling	The Court declined to certify, explaining the State sought certification too late and offered no alternative construction that would obviate the constitutional problem

Key Cases Cited

Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (upholding a 100-foot campaign-free zone around polling places to protect the right to vote and prevent intimidation/fraud)
International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992) (forum-based framework for speech restrictions on government property)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (nonpublic-forum standard: restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral)
Board of Airport Comm'rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569 (1987) (indeterminate prohibitions enabling arbitrary enforcement are constitutionally suspect)