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 
How often do I agree with the ACLU? Wow.
Anyway, this ruling is bogus. Going through the legislature is too slow. I support going to court to get an injunction.
If anyone is interested, the code in question is here, §24.2-604, paragraph A.
If you’re not interested, it’s still here, and still §24.2-604, paragraph A. 🙂
I wonder how this applies to my Ron Paul t-shirt, since he’s no longer in the campaign.
My son voted in the primary in an Obama shirt, and nobody uttered a peep. No, this is not an “interpretation” of existing law, it is an illegal attempt to stifle First Amendment rights.
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?
I’ll agree that it should be taken up with the legislators, but it still deserves a bit of an outcry. There are all sorts of things in VA’s code that are quite clear, yet ought not (and are not) ever be enforced. This should have been one of them.
You are, of course, utterly correct in this, VJP, and anybody who’s had any involvement in Virginia politics knows it.
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.
How do you like that, MB?! I’ve been called a far left moonbat!
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.
I’ve been called a far left moonbat, too!
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.
Mouse @ 8:30 – you got hung up in the spam filter – too many links. (And I have the code in the original post that I linked to in my post.)
Back to work 😦
Thanks for the link to the statute, Mouse.
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?
The point of the code section is clear: No campaign materials within 40 feet [or inside] the poll place.
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…
Patriots do not “suck up” clear violations of their constitutional rights. This is just such a violation.
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.
This ruling is going to be overturned. Then on election day, people coming to the polls will be dressed in full campaign regalia, just to make the point.
Vote naked!!
Some people who don’t want to be “bombarded with junk” should suck it up and not be tho thenthitive about other people’s t-shirts.
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.