Virginia Board Adopts Ban On Campaign Clothing

[ZeSpectre]

So how is this "high road" related? Well it's kind of interesting to hear the ACLU screaming about First Amendment Violations when they so blatantly ignore the rest (especially the second).

It's also interesting to see the arguments that those calling for the ban are using...remarkably similar to those same arguments used against the 2'nd Amendment (you know, it upsets the public).

It's also a shocking echo of the "zero tolerance" policies that allow schools to expel students for simply having a shirt or pen that says "Glock" on it or other similar stories we've seen in the news.

I can hear them now "That's right, we want a neat and orderly election, none of this debate or dissension nonsense, it makes the public uncomfortable".

I'm just having the worst time believing that this is my state VIRGINIA behaving this way!

Virginia Board Adopts Ban On Campaign Clothing

RICHMOND, Va. -

If you plan to vote on November 4, be careful what you wear to the polls.

The State Board of Elections on Tuesday adopted a ban on clothing, hats, buttons or other paraphernalia that directly advocates the election or defeat of a specific candidate or issue.

The ban is effective inside polling places or a long-held perimeter of 40 feet from polling place entrances.

The American Civil Liberties Union argued that the ban violates the First Amendment's right to free speech.

The board, however, said it has to weigh that against the right to vote free of undue influence or the tension that candidate advocacy might create.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'm all for this ban, as a practical necessity if we are to have a secret ballot, free of intimidation.

I went to vote early, as I usually do, and the local Registrar made a guy with an Obama shirt turn it inside out when he was inside, voting. Frankly, I was glad that they were keeping some semblance of order. By the stickers on this guy's car, he was a union thug.

So yes, we DO want polling places to be places where citizens do not feel intimidated or uncomfortable, when they go to mark their ballots, as is their right.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I'm all for this ban, as a practical necessity if we are to have a secret ballot, free of intimidation.

Seriously?
The vote is SECRET, nobody KNOWS how you voted (well unless you wear a candidate t-shirt or button I suppose).

This sounds an awful lot like the Anti-RKBA folks who want to have the Constitution "a-la-carte", only picking and choosing the sections that they like and ignoring the rest. Banning someone from expressing their opinion(s) of the candidates...this is extremely troublesome and I SERIOUSLY doubt it would have been possible before the Second Amendment was castrated.

 

[ArmedBear]

We're talking about people bothering and/or silently intimidating other people inside or around the entrance of polling places, during an election.

If you can't see how this is a legitimate problem, and that Virginia's solution is a best-effort attempt at protecting the sanctity of the polling booth, not an attempt to silence political discourse, I'm really not sure what to say.

I have no idea what this has to do with RKBA, literally or metaphorically. Furthermore, there are many laws governing where guns are pointed, and when and where we can fire them around other people. None of us here has ever seriously argued that a law making it a crime to point a gun at an innocent person, or shooting cans downtown, is an infringement on RKBA.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

So how is this "high road" related?

I think if it's related to the constitution, it's on topic, even if it doesn't have anything to do with guns. I'm not completely sure though.

 

[ZeSpectre]

We're talking about people bothering and/or silently intimidating other people inside or around the entrance of polling places, during an election.

Are we? Virginia already has "loitering" laws that can be used to prevent folks from "hanging around".

In this case they can DENY you your right to vote if you show up with a small campaign button or other "banned" clothing. You can now be turned away from the poll.

Who is making this decision about what is banned, has there been any discussion about this, any review? Where does one appeal if someone arbitrarily decides that something you are wearing is a "banned item"? What sort of backdoor interference does this leave open?

This kind of unilateral decision making, especially surrounding voting, is a PROBLEM.

 

[ArmedBear]

They will DENY you your right to vote if you show up with "banned" clothing. You will be turned away from the poll.

No. I was at a polling place where this happened. I wrote that above. The guy just turned his t-shirt inside out. He then voted.

Where does one appeal if someone arbitrarily decides that small campaign button you are wearing is a "banned item"?

A small campaign button can be removed and pocketed easily. There's no reason that this would be an infringement on one's right to vote.

Sorry, you're not convincing me. There are many rules that someone might find inconvenient, like no smoking in the polling place, or no dogs. What if I'm walking my dog when I go by the polls? They'll BAN me from voting? Give me a break.

Now the thing about closing bars while the polls are open, THAT might be an infringement on one's rights as an American...

 

[average_shooter]

I'm all for this ban...

Really...?

If there's ANY place ALL of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be 100% protected and recognized its "public property" i.e. government property, i.e. where many (most? all?) polling places are located.

We all have a right TO free speech, not a freedom FROM free speech. We all have a right TO keep and bear arms...

 

[ArmedBear]

Almost none of our polling places are on government property. Furthermore, free speech does not imply the right to disrupt lawful activities -- especially activities that involve fundamental rights. It never has.

Provided that this is a content-neutral rule, i.e. it applies to all candidates or sides of an issue equally, it is clearly not intended to prevent campaigning.

We all have a right TO free speech, not a freedom FROM free speech. We all have a right TO keep and bear arms...

Clearly, the "Caps Lock" key is not the "cogent argument" key.

 

[ZeSpectre]

A small campaign button can be removed and pocketed easily.

This sort of attitude is what dumped the RKBA into the toilet via "reasonable restrictions".

Good GOD man, listen to yourself. Your firearms can also be left at home, they might make someone nervous and that could be seen as intimidation....sound familiar?

Sorry, you're not convincing me. There are many rules that someone might find inconvenient, like no smoking in the polling place, or no dogs. What if I'm walking my dog when I go by the polls? They'll BAN me from voting? Give me a break.

No, give ME a break.
Smoking - not Constitutionally protected
Dog Walking - not Constitutionally protected
Freedom of speech - Woah, what do you know, a Constitutionally Protected RIGHT, and I'm not just talking Federally...
The Constitution of the State of Virginia

Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.

That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

Not to mention that "hindering, solicitation, loitering and influencing" are already covered in

§ 24.2-604. Prohibited activities at polls; notice of prohibited area; presence of representatives of parties or candidates; simulated elections; penalties; neutral observers; news media.

I'm very much reminded of the bans in schools where students have been expelled for having a T-Shirt that says "GLOCK" or a pen with the Winchester logo and so forth.

 

[ArmedBear]

Uh, there are MANY "reasonable restrictions" on speech. If you think that "Constitutionally Protected" is synonymous with "absolute and unconditional in all cases at all times", again, there's not much I can say. That's not reality.

Rights often have to be balanced against each other.

Do you really know so little about the Constitution that you seem to want to use as a verbal shillelagh?

 

[ZeSpectre]

Uh, there are MANY "reasonable restrictions" on speech. If you think that "Constitutionally Protected" is synonymous with "absolute and unconditional in all cases at all times", again, there's not much I can say. That's not reality.

I'm sorry, did I state that I felt anything was "absolute and unconditional"? Trying to force my argument into absurdly exaggerated territory is pretty weak.

What I'm wondering is, where is this new rule reasonable and necessary? All of the issues it purports to address have ALREADY been covered under other laws (which I have already cited via the regulations of Virginia). Give me ONE SINGLE good reason why this rule needed to come into existence.

Again, this bears distressing parallels to anti-RKBA rhetoric, if one law is good then five more should be super-good. Incrementalism concerns me greatly.

 

[ArmedBear]

ZeSpectre-

Maybe you live in a place where people are polite, friendly and respectful, so it may not be clear to you what this is attempting to address.

See the following for an example of how and why this rule might protect Constitutional rights, rather than violate them.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2087002/posts

If there isn't an across-the-board policy, then you have arbitrary enforcement. And believe me, it will be one or the other.

What won't happen in the real world is unrestricted campaign activity at polling places without any intimidation or other violations of the rights of citizens who wish to quietly vote in a secret-ballot election.

The real world alternatives are these:

1. Simple and equitable rules that prevent all sorts of electioneering around polls.
2. Harassment of citizens trying to vote.

Short of such rules, who decides what's "harassment"? How is leaving these decisions in the hands of individuals at polling places -- often garages or similar places around here -- somehow a better alternative? How does that protect our rights?

And I reiterate, I see no parallel with RKBA. Furthermore, one's right to wear a Glock t-shirt in public is not RKBA, either. It's a free speech issue.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Short of such rules, who decides what's "harassment"? How is leaving these decisions in the hands of individuals at polling places -- often garages or similar places around here -- somehow a better alternative? How does that protect our rights?

That's precisely my point. Who the hell authorized these temporary election workers to determine that certain articles of clothing are not permitted? Who are they to be arbitrary judge and above all why is it even necessary when there are ALREADY LAWS covering harassment, intimidation, etc. that sworn law enforcement officers should be, you know, enforcing.

Maybe you live in a place where people are polite, friendly and respectful, so it may not be clear to you what this is attempting to address.

And I'll attempt to make this response as civil as possible. Before you assume I'm some "pie-in-the-sky" tree hugger you might want to do a bit of research on my past history. I have no illusions about what -some- people are like and have, in point of fact, "been on station" at polling locations in the past. Under the existing Code of Virginia I had no trouble at all removing troublemakers from the polling location.

This new rule is not needed and I'm gravely concerned that somebody has an agenda.

 

[ArmedBear]

Again, I don't know where you live, but I don't think we have enough LEO's in the state to cover every polling place. That's just not a realistic option. It's option 1 or 2, in the real world, as I said. Can you come up with a real option 3?

And what about the bars being closed? Why is the election a reason to interfere with the right to peaceably assemble?

I have no illusions about what -some- people are like and have, in point of fact, "been on station" at polling locations in the past. Under the existing Code of Virginia I had no trouble at all removing troublemakers from the polling location.

Well, not every 75-year-old poll worker who volunteers on a Tuesday can be a real-live Internet Tough Guy. In a perfect world, maybe they could be.

 

[ilbob]

There are plenty of things worth getting riled up about. Not being able to wear your Obama t-shirt is not one of them.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Again, I don't know where you live

Then you aren't paying attention, I live in Va.

Well, not every 75-year-old poll worker who volunteers on a Tuesday can be a real-live Internet Tough Guy.

"Internet tough guy" eh? Seems to me that now you are just trying to pick a fight so I'd say my debate with you is over since I'm not interested in playing that game.

 

[nplant]

It seems clear from the article that ArmedBear linked that the real problem came when people were unwilling to leave the area when told to (in compliance with law). Not the fact that (one) was wearing a t-shirt with a candidate's likeness printed on it.

I agree that we need to keep control of rogue electioneering. And certainly intimidation has no place near an official polling place on election day, but really, unless your t-shirt says, "I'll kill you if you vote for <candidate>" then I think it's anti-free speech.

In other words, merely displaying the likeness of Obama may be offensive to someone, but it is not intimidating in and of itself. Likewise, driving to a polling place with a McCain bumper sticker on your car (and parking in view of the ballot box) shouldn't become an issue as long as you're not pointing at the sticker, jumping up and down, and screaming "VOTE FOR THIS DUDE!"

I don't see any real issue with just wearing campaign paraphernalia. I disagree with the argument that you can just turn your shirt inside out - name one female that any of you know personally who would be willing to take her shirt off in public to turn it inside out. I think this idea is offensive to the spirit of the American citizen, and I don't see what an honest person stands to gain from this.

 

[gc70]

So yes, we DO want polling places to be places where citizens do not feel intimidated or uncomfortable, when they go to mark their ballots, as is their right.

I can't quite see the display of political paraphenalia as intimidating or something that would make people uncomfortable, but folks in Virginia - or Idaho - may be more sensitive. At any rate, if there was a right to be free from feeling intimidated or uncomfortable, none of us could ever carry guns.

 

[Mongrel]

It is interesting how some "get it" and others don't.

And this IS (yes my CAPS LOCK IS ON-smart allecks please take note so you can use it against this post later ), directly related to the RKBA and every other 'right'.

How?

By creating a mindset that's how. It creates a mindset of 'sensitivity' toward how people *feel* and then justifies the manipulation of behavior by it. Haven't we had enough of this crapola in our country already

Ironically, it is THIS (YES-CAPS LOCK KEY IS ON AGAIN THANK YOU for paying attention) very manipulation of behavior (by denying by law the right to express one's opinion non-confrontationally-i.e. wearing a button or shirt) that creates *real* intimidation in our nation. We are now faced with intimidation by the threat of legal 'punishment' if we make a firm stand on our convictions wether it be relative to the right of self preservation or who we prefer for public office....

What next, "he looked at me and snickered before I went into the voting booth. I was so nervous I wet myself and coulndn't push the button so I went home."? Cut me (and every other level headed American) a break. If we are so lacking in testicles and ovaries that we can't pull the right lever after looking at a t-shirt then maybe we should'nt be voting in the first place.

Isn't it obvious that this is just a continuation of "hate speech" and "terroristic threat" tactics in use already against libertarians, constitutionalists, people of faith, and any other group not failling in line?

Unless I missed something and the law quoted above states that "no person shall force another person to vote for "insert candidate here" at gunpoint", then this whole law about 'paraphenalia' (and the arguments in support of it) are nothing more than a certain bovine by-product.

Lastly-please spare me the high school debate team tactics. You will not 'win' this one with me.

 

[bigjohnson]

ZE SPECTRE: First of all the decision to prohibit the wearing of campaign t-shirts, buttons, etc. was not made by "temporary election workers". The decision was made by the state board of elections in Richmond, and applies to the entire state.
Virginia law Title 24.2, Section 604 prohibits "electioneering" within 40 feet of the entrance to the polls. It also states the following (See 24.2-604 (D.):
"It shall be unlawful for any ...voter to...(iii) solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any person in casting his vote."
This has been interpreted by the State Board of Elections to mean that you cannot wear any garment or emblem which may "influence any person in casting his vote." Since t-shirts, buttons, and badges are obviously intended to influence people in how they should cast their vote, it is easy to see how the State Board of Elections arrived at their ruling.
You've made it plain that you don't like the ruling. So go down and join your local ACLU chapter. I'm sure they'll give you a warm, fuzzy feeling.

 

[Mongrel]

Anyone catch this?

QUOTE:

"Local boards have the discretion to limit implied advocacy, or an indirect references for or against a candidate or ballot issue. An example would be a T-shirt that mocks or affirms support for a well-known position of one candidate without explicitly identifying the candidate". (emphasis added)

That's from the article linked above.

If that isn't obvious enough I don't know what is.

So I guess I can't wear my "Ruger" t-shirt to the polling place if it is construed as being an "implied" advocacy?

 

[average_shooter]

So I guess I can't wear my "Ruger" t-shirt to the polling place if it is construed as being an "implied" advocacy?

And don't wear any American flag pins or buttons when you go to vote, that might imply that you're a veteran and vote a certain way... And if you want to say something about it, kindly go to a government sanctioned "free speech zone."

And that's funny because I used to think that America was a "free speech zone." Oh well, times change, don't they?

 

[lacoochee]

Virginia law Title 24.2, Section 604 prohibits "electioneering" within 40 feet of the entrance to the polls. It also states the following (See 24.2-604 (D.):

I am particularly enamored of the distance portion of this law, it should 40,000 feet not 40 feet, no more political speech of any kind within 40,000 feet of a polling place. Sounds good to me. What 40,000 feet is unreasonable and arbitrary, guess what so is 40 feet I suspect 10 years from now it will be 400 feet and so on...bet's anyone?

 

[JohnBT]

The only thing that's allowed in a polling place in Virginia is voting. It's been that way during all of the decades I've been voting.

And thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up Virginia's electioneering law.

Note the phrases in Section D: "or in any manner attempt to influence any person in casting his vote" and "or exhibit any ballot, ticket, or other campaign material"

"D. It shall be unlawful for any authorized representative, voter, or any other person in the room to (i) hinder or delay a qualified voter; (ii) give, tender, or exhibit any ballot, ticket, or other campaign material to any person; (iii) solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any person in casting his vote; (iv) hinder or delay any officer of election; or (v) otherwise impede the orderly conduct of the election."

John

P.S. - Yes, some of us do get it.