SCOTUS, 7-2, rules Minnesota's ban on "political" clothing/paraphrenalia at polling places is too vague to be enforceable. Chief Justice for the majority, Sotomayor/Breyer dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf…
So I can't embed images today, but I can give the flyover in a few tweets. Bear with me:
1. The Court is unanimous that it's reasonable and proper for states to choose to restrict certain kinds of clothing/paraphernalia inside polling places, to make them "an island of calm".
2. Minnesota's policy, however, was amorphous -- anything "political" or dealing with groups with "well-known" political views. And you can't trust election-place officlals to enforce that.
3. Other states have drawn clearer, better lines -- limited to clothing with candidates or parties actually on the ballot. That, the majority seems fine with.
4. The dissent isn't really a dissent, but more of a "we should have let the Minnesota Supreme Court try to rein it in themselves" plea from Sotomayor and Breyer.
5. Overall, it's a decision I am totally fine with. I prefer states having policies which are open to enthusisatic voters wearing clothing supporting their choices, but am glad states have the leeway to police the sanctity of the polling place. #end
