Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

In 2010, Minnesota voter Andy Cilek was temporarily prevented from voting because he wore a Tea Party T-shirt and a “Please I.D. Me” button, in violation of a state law banning political apparel at polling places. The Minnesota Voters Alliance and others sued election official Joe Mansky, arguing the ban was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under the First Amendment. The district court and the Eighth Circuit upheld the law. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, and on June 14, 2018, it reversed in a 7-2 decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the statute’s sweeping terms gave election officials excessive discretion, lacked clear, objective standards, and chilled protected speech, thus violating the Free Speech Clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional on its face. The Court held that the broad language failed to provide sufficiently precise guidelines, effectively giving election officials unbridled discretion and chilling protected expression. The judgment of the Eighth Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded.

Whether Minnesota's ban on political apparel inside polling places violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause because the statutory language was vague and overly broad.

The ruling underscored that even in nonpublic forums like polling places, speech restrictions must be narrowly tailored and clearly defined. It prompted numerous states to review and revise their electioneering and apparel laws to avoid vagueness challenges, balancing the integrity of elections with robust First Amendment protections.