Late spring is always an interesting, if not bemusing, time for people who extol the virtues of individual liberty and respect for their neighbors. Because it’s in late spring that the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) offers its Delphic “Decisions” on matters pertaining to our rights and the size and scope of national, state, and local government.
Among many other delicious cases, the SCOTUS is now being asked to review and reject a law in Minnesota that bans all voters from showing up to the polls wearing clothing that could be interpreted as expressing any political or ideological principle, or opinion, or any speck of anything one might wear that could be associated with support for any candidate, political party, or ballot measure.
Got that?
In a request for certiorari filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which helps Americans fight for their individual rights against encroachments by politicians and bureaucrats, the court is being asked to overturn SB211B.11, a law that prohibits citizens from wearing to the polls any “political badge, political button, or other political insignia.” The law has been interpreted by Minnesota’s great state employees to include any shred of clothing that even expresses any political opinion or stance -- which, as one might surmise, is kind of a problem.
Of course, a law written to ban political speech is kind of a bad starting point, especially in a nation that is supposed to embrace freedom of expression and supposedly relies on it to propel its politicians into the realms of controlling everyone else’s lives through statute. As a result, a wide-open interpretation of it that includes any kind of “political anything” is just a logical outcome from a very bad origin.
Says Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Wen Fa:
“Minnesota has gone far beyond legitimate regulation and is now attempting to stifle the speech of voters of all ideological beliefs… Instead of merely telling people they can’t wear campaign paraphernalia when they vote, the state’s sweeping restrictions can be used against any kind of apparel that reflects personal values, no matter how nonpolitical the message. From unions to the Tea Party, this is a broad ban that threatens the free speech rights of everyone.”
Well said. That pretty much sums it up.
Except that one can dig a bit deeper in two directions. First is the Constitutional direction. According to the First Amendment, only Congress is prohibited from writing any speech laws. States can, and did pass and enforce speech laws until the late 19th Century. As much as I or any other civil libertarian would prefer otherwise, the states can still infringe on speech.
But the larger issue is found in an analysis of the infinite regress of the Minnesota law, and how narrow-minded those who push it appear to be. If one looks at the MN law as it is interpreted, then any kind of clothing could be considered to have a political interpretation. After all, humans are subjective creatures, so a vegan might see a plain leather belt and view that as a political statement about animal welfare laws, or a hippie might see a man in a three-piece suit as representative of corporatism, a lifestyle he or she opposes. Even shoes or bare feet can give rise to interpretations. So what is one to do?
If “political” clothing is to be banned because it could be seen as representing one candidate or another (which, one thought, was kind of the point of going into the voting booth in the first place), what does the typical voting booth say to someone who opposes the government entirely? Somehow, all of this debate overlooks the larger, macro issue of the process itself, and forcing people to pay for it.
What if someone does not, on principle, support the abstract idea of United States authority?
What if he or she is a peaceful anarchist?
The entire system of voting, with its red, white, and blue banners and American flags, is a political statement in itself. If one carries the logic of the clothing ban to its inevitable conclusion, the very flags and banners, the voting process itself – are all political statements that are pushed not only by some citizens, but also by the agents of the state themselves.
The Minnesota law is revealing on many levels, and it will be an important case to watch as the SCOTUS members do their line dances this year.
The Pacific Legal Foundation’s client, Andy Cilek notes:
“In these times when free speech enjoys scant support from bureaucrats and politicians as it is continually attacked throughout the nation, Minnesota’s political apparel ban is particularly dangerous. It empowers politicians with the authority to crush legitimate political expression with which they disagree.”
And he is absolutely right. Mr. Cilek was told to take off a "Don't Tread on Me" shirt when going to vote. In fact, the Minnesota law could, if taken to its logical conclusion, force people to walk into the polling places in their Birthday Suits. But even that would be seen as political by some, so there’s no end to the problem.
It's something to remember when one walks into his or her local polling booth and sees the decorations the government gets to erect, regardless of all the varying opinions those decorations might defy.
Perhaps if they only allowed brown to be shown inside – brown shirts, in particular -- Americans might get it.