Tea party intimidating voters
Indeed, the attorney for Cilek would not rule that out.
Cilek eventually was allowed to vote without removing the offending shirt and button.
Yet when Andrew Cilek showed up to cast his ballot in Hennepin County, Minn., in 2010, he was asked to remove or cover up a Tea Party shirt and a button reading “Please ID Me” (a message promoting a controversial step by poll workers — demanding identification from would-be voters — as a way to guard against election fraud).
But last week his lawyer asked the Supreme Court to strike down the state law that brought his apparel under the scrutiny of election officials.
Soon, every state had laws that banned electioneering outside polling places and eventually, most states adopted even stricter laws inside polling places.
Among the strictest is a Minnesota law that bars voters from wearing apparel or buttons that bear a “political” message. “I simply asked for a ballot, and they refused me twice,” he said.
The court could strike down Minnesota’s broad law without disturbing that decision.
Likewise, Rogan said, a shirt displaying the text of the 1st Amendment would be acceptable, but one displaying the text of the 2nd Amendment “could be viewed as political.”Justice Neil Gorsuch worried that the state’s approach “would forbid people from wearing certain portions of the Bill of Rights into a polling place but not other portions of the Bill of Rights.” That worries us too.Cover up that T-shirt or button Under enforcement guidelines issued for Election Day, poll watchers were told to ask voters to either cover up or remove any item of clothing, badge or button that supported or opposed a candidate, ballot question or recognized political party or group, including those like the Tea Party or Move The buttons were distributed by, among others, the Minnesota Voters Alliance, which acknowledged that by wearing the buttons and flashing their identification, they were creating the false impression that Minnesota law requires a photo ID in order to vote. It said ‘Tea Party Patriots, Don’t Tread on Me.’ “ According to affidavits in the case, he was also wearing a “Please I. “The only explanation they gave me is that the shirt was political.” The third time, he came back with his lawyer and was allowed to vote, but his name and address were taken down because the law provides for up to a 0 fine for violating the ban on political apparel.Also banned was any item designed to influence voting, including specifically “Please I. “I went to vote in November of 2010,” recalls Andrew Cilek, executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance. According to the state, the fine has never been levied and was not in this case.Anderson, the AG spokesperson, told TPM that the unit was being launched to help to maintain voter confidence after some — including President Trump — claimed mass voter fraud in recent elections.Anderson said those claims were “unfounded” and compared the unit’s work to the show “Myth Busters” in that it could debunk allegations if the evidence to support them weren’t there.