I’m not sure why anyone expected a different answer than the one Nancy Rodrigues, Secretary of the State Board of Elections, gave about three weeks ago. At the time I wrote the post, she qas quite unambiguous as to her interpretation of the statute. So Tuesday’s decision is no surprise: no campaign hats, shirts, buttons, stickers, etc. will be allowed within 40 feet of the polling place.
Now, rather than hyperventalating about this, take it up with your legislator. While I doubt you’ll find me defending Rodrigues much, in this case, the code is quite clear. If you don’t like the code, don’t blame the messenger. Work to get it changed.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Where does it say you have a constitutional right to wear a shirt or say something inside a polling place or with 40 feet of a polling place?
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.
Simple case of the time honored tradition of folks wanting the follow only the rules or laws the wish to; kinda like speeding. people who feel that statute is ridiculous; ignore it and wear t-shirts and the like but most are unware of the rstrictions. The question also arises who is really at fault here; the people who don’t know and are simply getting behind a candidate or Party or the people who do know and are working the polling stations and SAY NOTHING. I stood in amazement at the countless t-shirts for Obama in the Primary in line and polling staff still felt compelled to ask “Republican or Democrat” for the ballot. Did they not notice the shirts? Or did they simply just not care and where instructed to say what they said like robots?
Hey, you know we really don’t want people wearing Washington National apparel in the stadium because people might get an idea of which team we support; isn’t this all we are talking about. Has not our politics simply become like laundry anyway. Democrat Blue, Republican Red in the same manner in which we support sports teams.
I suppose, J. Scott, that folks in America (still) assume that absent some very very good reason, we’re free to say and wear what we like where we like (a default rule that also seems to elude Mr. Watson – hint, it’s at the very beginning of the Bill of Rights).
As to the poll workers – they’re doing their jobs. Hardly robots.
And when the outcome of one primary is more important to you, you can vote in that primary even if you have no intention of voting for that candidate in the general election.
MB:
Would not there “job” be pointing out restrictions or violations of such restrictions. Who is it exactly that enforces such measures as 40 feet or 100 feet? Is it not the polling station Election officials? Exactly who has the “authority” to ask someone to remove or turn a shirt inside out exactly at a polling station? Look, I am not in favor of such restrictions per say but if we have them and the Board of Elections has implemented them, does it not make since then to have them enforced and that “job” falls on those tasked with running the polling station, otherwise they are simply robots.
Umm, sure it would be, J. Scott, but I don’t see where you’re talking about that. As I read it, you were mocking the poll workers for asking people in Obama t-shirts whether they wanted to vote Republican or Democrat.
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.
I was not “mocking” them, but was pointing out they either ignored the shirts or failed to recognize them altogether. I guess many people would make ther arguement that if no one complained no harm no foul, but I think that is just ridiculous. The idea as stated above by others is to prevent undue influence, but I guess those that feel the restriction is baseless are the same folks who are against private, secret ballots being cast for union votes as well. Why am I not suprised.
You’re not surprised, I’m guessing, because you’re the one who made it up. J. Scott, you seem to be doing a lot of arguing with yourself here. The whole idea of the Internet – as I understand it, anyway – is to facilitate exchange between people. In order to do that, each party has to actually say/type out loud what they’re thinking. I’m pretty sure you’re the only one here who knew we were talking about card checks and union ballots.
“The idea as stated above by others is to prevent undue influence, but I guess those that feel the restriction is baseless are the same folks who are against private, secret ballots being cast for union votes as well.”
WHAT? Wearing a T-shirt that says “Obama” or “NObama” constitutes “undue influence”? That’s a long way from opposing “private, secret ballots.”
This is a really good question. “Where does it say you have a constitutional right to wear a shirt or say something inside a polling place or with 40 feet of a polling place?”
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.
Are you people incapable of reading? This provision has been on the books since at least 2000:
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!”
Timothy, are you being intentionally obtuse? You know you can wear a t-shirt that says “Fire!” in a crowded theater without fear of prosecution, right?
MB I did not realize I was standing in church listening to all this preaching all of sudden. As Timothy points out the statute is the statute but of course there are so many levels that one can look at this whole situation I guess.
It is what it is, but hey what the heck we can just invent our on version or interpretation mindset regarding the manner right? “Undue influence” by the way I believe came from the views expressed regarding the rationale for the statute by the BOE and in terms of the union balloting MB the point is when you walk into a polling station wearing a t-shirt you are expressing something YOU are choosing to make public yourself, but what if you do not wish to express your vote in such a manner and wish to keep it private; well then don’t wear a shirt right? The issue is how does that translate to tossing out secret balloting? What if you are a member and do not want to be infleunced regarding your vote and your vote is being made public to the other side as in a union. That was the only point I was making. People certainly should have the right to express through t-shirts but then shouldn’t we also have right to keep our vote personal, even in a union that was merely my point.
What happens when I go to vote with 4 of my friends. Each one of us has a gisnt letter on our back. One has a “A”, another has a “B”, another has another “A”, another has an “M”, and I have an “O”. Now if when we line up and stand in line those 5 letters spell out “MABOA”, BOAMA, or BAMAO, nothing should happen, right? But what if we line up in a different order and it spells “OBAMA”, what then? Will we be kicked out and not allowed to vote? What happens if all voters wear either a “B”, “O”, “M”, or “A”. Eventually, the odds should put the sequences together and spell “OBAMA”. What happens then. I know this sounds ridiculuous, b-u-t not as ridiculous as this ruling… More BS!