HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.congcourts/fjcwpm0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
Wearing Political Messages
at the Polls in Minnesota
Minnesota Majority v. Mansky
(Joan N. Ericksen, D. Minn. 0:10-cv-4401)
On the Thursday before a general election, a federal complaint
challenged proscriptions on wearing Tea Party shirts and Please
I.D. Me buttons at the polls. On the following day, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The district judge
heard the case on Monday morning and denied immediate relief.
Following nearly five years of additional litigation, including an ap-
peal, the judge granted the defendants summary judgment, finding
the proscriptions justified as promoting decorum at the polls. The
court of appeals agreed that it was reasonable to ban political ap-
parel to ensure a neutral, influence-free polling place, but the Su-
preme Court decided that the proscription on speech relating to is-
sues not actually on the ballot was too broad.
Subject: Polling place activities. Topics: Campaign materials;
matters for state courts; news media.
At 4:55 p.m., five days before the 2010 general election, four organizations, a
county election judge, and five other Minnesota voters filed a federal com-
plaint in the District of Minnesota against Minnesota's secretary of state and
election officials for the counties including Minneapolis and St. Paul, chal-
lenging a prohibition on wearing Tea Party shirts or Please I.D. Me buttons
at the polls.' At approximately 3:00 p.m. on Friday, the following day, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction.2
Judge Joan N. Ericksen heard the case in a crowded courtroom on Mon-
day, November 1, and denied immediate relief. Plaintiffs have not met their
burden of demonstrating that the Court would likely find in their favor on
the abstention issue established by Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. and
1. Complaint, Minn. Majority v. Mansky, No. 0:10-cv-4401 (D. Minn. Oct. 28, 2010),
D.E. 1; Minn. Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. _, _, 138 S. Ct. 1876, 1884 (2018);
Interview with Hon. Joan N. Ericksen, Sept. 15, 2015; see Mike Kaszuba & James Walsh,
Voter Fraud Debate Escalates Loudly, Minneapolis Star Trib., Oct. 29, 2010, at 5B.
Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Ericksen for this report by telephone.
2. Motion, Minn. Majority, No. 0:10-cv-4401 (D. Minn. Oct. 29, 2010), D.E. 2; Interview
with Hon. Joan N. Ericksen, Sept. 15, 2015.
3. Opinion at 4, Minn. Majority, No. 0:10-cv-4401 (D. Minn. Nov. 1, 2010), D.E. 35
[hereinafter Nov. 1, 2010, Opinion], 2010 WL 4450798; Minutes, id. (Nov. 1, 2010), D.E. 34;
Minn. Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. at _, 138 S. Ct. at 1884; Minn. Majority v. Mansky, 708
F.3d 1051, 1055 (8th Cir. 2013); Minn. Majority v. Mansky, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1117; In-
terview with Hon. Joan N. Ericksen, Sept. 15, 2015 (noting also that the judge ruled from the
bench and then filed an opinion at approximately 2:00 p.m.); see James Walsh & Mike
Kaszuba, Judge Rejects Appeal for Election Gear, Minneapolis Star Trib., Nov. 2, 2010, at 3B.
Federal Judicial Center 7/11/2018
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/fjcwpm0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)