A. During the times the polls are open and ballots are being counted, it shall be unlawful for any person (i) to loiter or congregate within 40 feet of any entrance of any polling place; (ii) within such distance to give, tender, or exhibit any ballot, ticket, or other campaign material to any person or to solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any person in casting his vote; or (iii) to hinder or delay a qualified voter in entering or leaving a polling place.

As I said above, this provision has been there since at least 2000.

It’s up to the local poll workers to enforce it, and it’s up to the local Commonwealth’s Attorney to prosecute the provisions.

I would like any of you guys whining about the provision to do the following on election: Sit in front of the door of the polling place, or inside the polling place itself, and shout “Vote x ’08″, where x is the name of the candidate you support, and see what happens.

If you have any stones, you’ll let yourself get arrested (nonviolent resistance) when you’re told to move and see what the court has to say about the matter.

I’m sure the men in brown suits, or blue for those areas that have police departments, will love dealing with you.

“Don’t tase me, bro!”

We were talking about the t-shirts, don’t change the subject.

The answer is, inthe First Amendment, which supersedes state statutes in conflict with it.

“Say something?” The statute says you can’t solicit or attempt to influence somebody within 40 feet. That seems to be a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction that would be upheld.

That’s not the same thing as wearing a t-shirt.

There is no reason to believe that simply silently wearing a t-shirt with a candidate’s name on it while standing in line to vote is going to (or is intended to) influence anybody. Also, wearing a t-shirt is not within the statutory language, despite the “interpretation” to the contrary. Statutes are supposed to be narrowly construed, particularly when there is a countervailing constitutional right at stake.

WHAT? Wearing a T-shirt that says “Obama” or “NObama” constitutes “undue influence”? That’s a long way from opposing “private, secret ballots.”

As to the t-shirts, until yesterday’s vote, the level of enforcement was set county by county, as best I can understand it. Construing the provision against display of campaign material (which, taken in context with the rest of the provision, sure seems aimed at lit, signs, etc.) in such a was as to bar someone from exercising one of their most fundamental rights? Not exactly the option that makes the most sense, I’d say. So I’d hardly expect that of every pollworker in the past. (Then again, Virginia’s never been too big on making sure that everyone can vote . . .).

But we’ve got the guidance now, and we’ll see how it goes.

As to the poll workers – they’re doing their jobs. Hardly robots.

The whole point of this law is to prevent people from being harassed within polling and just outside polling places.

So, should I be able to stand right in front of the door or inside the polling place and shout “Vote Jim Bob ’08!”? Freedom of speech and assembly and all that, right?

You people obviously aren’t aware of such things as protest permits and the like either.

Someone tell me how long this law has been on the books. Its hard to tell with all the revision to the code section but I can guarantee you that it will survive any court challenge.

Then we wouldn’t have to wait and watch as Ms. Rodrigues gets handed her (hat) and the Commonwealth pays the ACLU’s attorney’s fees.

I’ll wear a “Vote Content of Character, not Color of Skin” T-shirt, and see whether the poll-workers can figure out who I’m supporting!

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Suck. It. Up.

Some people don’t want to be bombarded with junk when they go to vote.

I was doing poll work for someone during the 2007 general and I had a campaign T-shirt of his on while working outside the 40 feet area.

During a break when no one was voting, I went so far as to put another T-shirt on top of the one I had on, so I could go inside to vote and not cause any problems.

Of course, the candidate I was supporting’s opponent’s people decided to camp inside the 40 feet area with one of their signs until they were told to move by the poll workers.

Always seems that one side of the aisle thinks that clearly stated rules don’t apply to them…

The only part that might apply is the section that makes it illegal to:

“give, tender, or exhibit any ballot, ticket, or other campaign material to any person [or] solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any person in casting his vote.”

So now we know the reason the statute hasn’t been interpreted that way in the past. It’s simply not a reasonable interpretation of the authority given by the statute.

For example, if I’m wearing a t-shirt, I’m not exhibiting “campaign material,” am I? No, I’m just wearing a shirt.

I’m also not soliciting or attempting to influence any person in casting his vote. I’m wearing a shirt.

Also, the SBE’s interpretation must be narrowly construed to avoid trampling on any Constitutional rights. Its new interpretation is either unconstitutional in its own right, or overly broad, or both.

Vivian, it’s not enough to cite the statute and call this an “interpretation.”

The Constitution supercedes state statutes, regulations, and yes, interpretations that are in conflict with it. So just saying this interpretation is within the statute does not even begin to address the constitutional issue that the SBE has inexplicably gone out of its way to unnecessarily raise. They wanna get sued, their choice, their problem. I say the attorney fees are going to be paid by Ms. Rodrigues, and in federal court, no less. Any and every Virginia law professor worth his or her salt should be calling the ACLU just about now and volunteering to help get this problem corrected, immediately.

And again, any idea why the League of Women voters has suddenly decided that voting is a bad thing?

Back to work

James, I’m a sovereign individualist. Some would call me a libertarian, others call me an anarcho-capitalist(I’m neither, but admittedly I’m remarkably close to both). There’s more variety to political opinion than liberal-left and conservative-right.

I do wish people would abandon this childish binary view of politics.

James, I am about as conservative as you can get, and I think an 0bama T-shirt is quite “reasonable” for a voter to wear when going in to vote.

All the sturm und drang on the far Left simply demonstrates that they comprise the “moonbat” fringe. These are clearly “reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions,” and the ACLU’s posturing is little more than an effort to intimidate the relevant officials into bending to its will.

I hope the ACLU files suit on this. I suspect that it will be one of those few occasions where a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit will be permitted to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Virginian-Pilot said the League of Women Voters endorsed this ban, and sent its legislative coordinator to speak for it.

What process did the League follow in determining that this endorsement was in accord with the views of its membership? And why should anybody ever join the League of Women Voters again?

If you’re not interested, it’s still here, and still §24.2-604, paragraph A.

Anyway, this ruling is bogus. Going through the legislature is too slow. I support going to court to get an injunction.