CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 1

Wearing Tea Party Shirts at Polling Places 

Reed v. Purcell (James A. Teilborg, D. Ariz. 2:10-cv-2324) 

On the Thursday before the 2010 general-election day, a voter filed 

a federal complaint in the District of Arizona seeking the right to 

wear a shirt at his polling place supporting the Tea Party, a party 

that did not appear on the ballot. On Monday, the judge granted 

the plaintiff temporary relief. In 2011, Arizona’s election statutes 

were revised, mooting the case. 

Subject: Polling-place activities. Topics: Campaign materials; 

intervention; attorney fees. 

A voter filed a federal complaint in the District of Arizona on Thursday, October 28, 2010, against Maricopa County election officials, seeking the right 

to wear at his polling place on election day, November 2, “a t-shirt that states: 

‘Tea Party: Principles Not Politicians,’ with the insignia ‘Don’t Tread On 

Me.’”1

 The complaint cited an October 20 injunction issued by Judge James 

A. Teilborg against Coconino County concerning Tea Party shirts worn at 

polling places in the 2010 general election.2

 With his complaint, the plaintiff 

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.3

The Coconino case was filed on September 20,4 and a motion for a temporary restraining order was filed on October 13,5

 the same day that the 

county recorder filed her answer with a counterclaim.6

 The counterclaim 

sought a declaratory judgment that the recorder acted in compliance with an 

Arizona statute that proscribed electioneering within 75 feet of a polling 

place.7

On October 14, Judge Teilborg denied ex parte relief and set the case for 

hearing on October 21.8

 On October 18, he ordered briefing on whether the 

state should be invited to participate as a party because the case concerned 

the constitutionality of a state statute.9 On October 20, Judge Teilborg issued 

a stipulated injunction permitting voters to wear at Coconino County polling 

places on November 2 the “Flagstaff tea party design.”10

1. Complaint at 4, Reed v. Purcell, No. 2:10-cv-2324 (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2010), D.E. 1. 

2. Id. at 8; see Order, Wickberg v. Owens, No. 3:10-cv-8177 (D. Ariz. Oct. 20, 2010), D.E. 

30. 

3. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Reed, No. 2:10-cv-2324 (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 

2010), D.E. 4. 

4. Complaint, Wickberg, No. 3:10-cv-8177 (D. Ariz. Sept. 20, 2010), D.E. 1. 

5. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Oct. 13, 2010), D.E. 11. 

6. Recorder Answer, id. (Oct. 13, 2010), D.E. 12 [hereinafter Wickberg Recorder Answer]; see also County Answer, id. (Nov. 10, 2010), D.E. 34. 

7. Wickberg Recorder Answer, supra note 6, at 11. 

8. Order, Wickberg, No. 3:10-cv-8177 (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2010), D.E. 14. 

9. Order, id. (Oct. 18, 2010), D.E. 18; see 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b); see also Certification Order, 

Wickberg, No. 3:10-cv-8177 (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2010), D.E. 40. 

10. Order, Wickberg, No. 3:10-cv-8177 (D. Ariz. Oct. 20, 2010), D.E. 30. 
Wearing Tea Party Shirts at Polling Places 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 

As in the Coconino case, Judge Teilborg declined to issue an ex parte 

temporary restraining order in the Maricopa case and set a hearing for Monday, November 1.11 Following testimony, arguments, and a 1:49 p.m. recess, 

he announced his ruling at 2:51 p.m.12

Judge Teilborg issued a temporary restraining order allowing voters in 

Maricopa County to wear Tea Party shirts and other message apparel that 

did not advocate for or against ballot measures, candidates, or political parties.13 (“The ‘tea party’ is not recognized as a political party by the State of 

Arizona.”14) 

The Coconino case was dismissed as settled on April 12, 2011.15 Arizona’s 

election statutes were amended on April 29, narrowing the proscription on 

polling-place electioneering from the display of “political or electioneering 

materials” to the display of “electioneering materials.”16 On May 16, Judge 

Teilborg ordered briefing on effects of the change in the Maricopa case.17 On 

August 1, he dismissed the case as mooted by the statutory change.18 He 

awarded the Maricopa plaintiff $71,224 in fees and costs on October 31.19

11. Order, Reed v. Purcell, No. 2:10-cv-2324 (D. Ariz. Oct. 29, 2010), D.E. 10. 

12. Temporary Restraining Order at 8, id. (Nov. 1, 2010), D.E. 15 [hereinafter Reed Temporary Restraining Order], 2010 WL 4394289; Transcript at 85–86, id. (Nov. 1, 2010, filed 

Nov. 22, 2010), D.E. 28 [hereinafter Reed Transcript]. 

13. Reed Transcript, supra note 12, at 89. 

14. Reed Temporary Restraining Order, supra note 12, at 3. 

15. Order, Wickberg, No. 3:10-cv-8177 (D. Ariz. Apr. 12, 2011), D.E. 49. 

16. 2011 Ariz. Legis. Serv. ch. 332 (West). 

17. Order, Reed, No. 2:10-cv-2324 (D. Ariz. May 16, 2011), D.E. 37. 

18. Order, id. (Aug. 1, 2011), D.E. 45. 

19. Order, id. (Oct. 31, 2011), D.E. 55, 2011 WL 5128142.