CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/5/2023 1

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 appeal, 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 apparel to ensure a neutral, influence-free polling place, but the Supreme Court decided that the proscription on speech relating to issues not actually on the ballot was too broad. 

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

matters for state courts; news media; attorney fees. 

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 complaint in the District of Minnesota against Minnesota’s secretary of state and 

election officials for the counties including Minneapolis and St. Paul, challenging a prohibition on wearing Tea Party shirts or “Please I.D. Me” buttons 

at the polls.1 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 Monday, November 1, and denied immediate relief.3

 “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; Interview 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. 
Wearing Political Messages at the Polls in Minnesota 

2 Federal Judicial Center 3/5/2023 

Younger v. Harris.

4

 Moreover, “prohibiting the buttons and apparel is reasonably related to the legitimate state interest of maintaining peace, order, 

and decorum at the polls.”5

On election day, 

At least three [members of a plaintiff organization] were affected by the 

[policy at issue]. One was asked to cover or remove his t-shirt. Another who 

refused to cover or remove his button had his name and address recorded. 

Yet another who was wearing both a t-shirt and a button was delayed several hours before voting.6

Judge Ericksen dismissed an amended complaint on April 29, 2011.7

“Minnesota’s strong interest in creating a neutral zone where individuals can 

vote free from external influence is reasonably furthered by restricting the 

expression of political views within the narrow confines of the polling 

place.”8

On March 6, 2013, the court of appeals substantially affirmed Judge Ericksen’s decision, except that the court of appeals determined that Judge Ericksen considered matters outside of the pleadings in ruling on a motion to 

dismiss the complaint and remanded the case for summary-judgment consideration of the plaintiffs’ as-applied First Amendment challenge.9

On remand, Judge Ericksen granted Minnesota’s secretary of state summary judgment as to the buttons on October 15, 2014: 

The undisputed evidence before the Court . . . is both that Plaintiff Election Integrity Watch intended that their “Please I.D. Me” buttons be used as 

part of an orchestrated effort to falsely intimate to voters in line at the polls 

that photo identification is required in order to vote in Minnesota, and that 

Plaintiff Election Integrity Watch—whose name, website, and phone number are featured prominently on the buttons—is connected to a campaign 

that aims to change state and local laws such that voters would be required 

4. Nov. 1, 2010, Opinion, supra note 3, at 4; see id. at 1, 3 (noting that the three-hour 

hearing began at 8:45 a.m.); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (determining that 

the federal courts should not enjoin a criminal prosecution for violation of a statute that may 

violate the First Amendment absent a showing of bad faith, because the state courts can adjudicate the constitutional claim); id. at 54 (“the possible unconstitutionality of a statute ‘on 

its face’ does not in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it”); 

R.R. Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (holding that if resolution of an uncertain 

state-law matter might moot a federal constitutional question, “In the absence of any showing that . . . methods for securing a definitive ruling in the state courts cannot be pursued 

with full protection of the constitutional claim, the district court should exercise its wise 

discretion by staying its hands.”). 

5. Nov. 1, 2010, Opinion, supra note 3, at 6 (quotation alterations omitted). 

6. Minn. Majority, 708 F.3d at 1055; see Minn. Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. at ___, 138 S. Ct. 

at 1884. 

7. Minn. Majority, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1112; Minn. Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. at ___, 138 S. 

Ct. at 1884; Minn. Majority, 708 F.3d at 1055; see Amended Complaint, Minn. Majority, No. 

0:10-cv-4401 (D. Minn. Nov. 18, 2010), D.E. 42. 

8. Minn. Majority, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 1133. 

9. Minn. Majority, 708 F.3d 1051, cert. denied, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 824 (2013); Minn. 

Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. at ___, 138 S. Ct. at 1884–85. 
Wearing Political Messages at the Polls in Minnesota 

Federal Judicial Center 3/5/2023 3

to present photo identification at the polls. The Plaintiffs offer nothing in 

the way of evidence or argument to counter the obvious conclusion that 

flows from these facts: that precluding the Plaintiffs from wearing these buttons in the polling place—whether a voter identification measure is on the 

ballot or not—is rationally related to the state’s interests in protecting voters 

from confusion and undue influence and in preserving the decorum of the 

polls and the integrity of elections.10

As to the shirts, however, the secretary did not present undisputed facts establishing that banning Tea Party apparel at polls would “maintain[] the decorum of the polls, preserv[e] the integrity of elections, and/or protect[] voters from confusion and undue influence.”11

Because of a better factual record presented by the county election officials, Judge Ericksen granted them summary judgment on March 23, 2015, as 

to the Tea Party apparel proscriptions.12 The county defendants established 

that the Tea Party apparel at issue unquestionably conveyed political messages that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting voters from at the 

polls.13

Appeals were heard on October 20, 2016, at the University of Minnesota 

Law School.14 On February 28, 2017, the court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment, finding it reasonable to ban Tea Party apparel and all other 

political material to ensure a neutral, influence-free polling place.15

The Supreme Court decided on June 14, 2018, that Minnesota’s apparel 

proscription went too far.16

A polling place in Minnesota qualifies as a nonpublic forum. It is, at 

least on Election Day, government-controlled property set aside for the sole 

purpose of voting. . . . 

. . . 

[W]e see no basis for rejecting Minnesota’s determination that some 

forms of advocacy should be excluded from the polling place, to set it aside 

as “an island of calm in which voters can peacefully contemplate their 

choices.” Brief for Respondents 43. Casting a vote is a weighty civic act, akin 

to a jury’s return of a verdict, or a representative’s vote on a piece of legisla10. Minn. Majority v. Mansky, 62 F. Supp. 3d 870, 876–77 (D. Minn. 2014). 

11. Id. at 878–79. 

12. Opinion, Minn. Majority, No. 0:10-cv-4401 (D. Minn. Mar. 23, 2015), D.E. 167. 

13. Id. at 21. 

14. Docket Sheet, Minn. Majority v. Mansky, No. 15-1741 (8th Cir. Apr. 13, 2015) (secretary’s appeal); Docket Sheet, Minn. Majority v. Mansky, No. 15-1682 (8th Cir. Apr. 2, 2015) 

(plaintiffs’ appeal); Oral Argument, id. (8th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016), media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/ 

OAaudio/2016/10/151682.mp3 (audio recording). 

15. Minn. Majority v. Mansky, 849 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2017); see Minn. Voters Alliance v. 

Mansky, 585 U.S. ___, ___, 138 S. Ct. 1876, 1885 (2018). 

16. Minn. Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1876; see Minn. Voters Alliance v. 

Mansky, 898 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2018) (reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants); see also Robert Barnes, High Court Says Minnesota Ban on Political Apparel at Polls Is Too Broad, Wash. Post, June 15, 2018, at A3; Adam Liptak, Justices Say 

Law Barring Political Attire Is Too Broad, N.Y. Times, June 15, 2018, at A11. 
Wearing Political Messages at the Polls in Minnesota 

4 Federal Judicial Center 3/5/2023 

tion. It is a time for choosing, not campaigning. The State may reasonably 

decide that the interior of the polling place should reflect that distinction. 

. . . The State may reasonably take steps to ensure that partisan discord 

not follow the voter up to the voting booth, and distract from a sense of 

shared civic obligation at the moment it counts the most. That interest may 

be thwarted by displays that do not raise significant concerns in other situations. 

. . . 

But the State must draw a reasonable line. . . . 

[T]he statute prohibits wearing a “political badge, political button, or 

other political insignia.” It does not define the term “political.” And the 

word can be expansive. . . . 

. . . 

A rule whose fair enforcement requires an election judge to maintain a 

mental index of the platforms and positions of every candidate and party on 

the ballot is not reasonable. . . . 

. . . 

That is not to say that Minnesota has set upon an impossible task. Other States have laws proscribing displays (including apparel) in more lucid 

terms.17

On January 8, 2019, the court of appeals awarded plaintiffs a total of 

$982,028.53 in attorney fees and costs.18

17. Minn. Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. at ___, 138 S. Ct. at 1886–89, 1891. 

18. Order, Minn. Majority, No. 15-1682 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019).