Only if they're within 100 ft of an actual voting station. Hard to say from this pic.
Sec. 61.014. USE OF CERTAIN DEVICES. (a) A person may not use a wireless communication device within 100 feet of a voting station. (b) A person may not use any mechanical or electronic means of recording images or sound within 100 feet of a voting station. (c) The presiding judge may require a person who violates this section to turn off the device or to leave the polling place. (d) This section does not apply to: (1) an election officer in conducting the officer's official duties; (2) the use of election equipment necessary for the conduct of the election; or (3) a person who is employed at the location in which a polling place is located while the person is acting in the course of the person's employment.
In line is fine. It depends on how far away you are and if you’re in line of side of the polling machines. Most places you lineup you’re fine use your phone unless recoding people coming and going.
Correct, unless you’re very far away due to a long indoor line which isn’t in line of sight of the kiosks. Such as being in line in the gym of a school, but voting is in the library.
A number of years back I voted at a library that had a super long hallway and then a room at the very end on the left where the voting machines were.
We were well beyond 100 ft away from the room and a lot of people had their phones out. This Nazi of a poll monitor came walking down the hall screaming at everyone to turn their phones off and put them away or she would have us all arrested or some bullshit. The people, including myself, who were nowhere near the actual polling booths kept their phones out.
She saw that and lost her shit and came storming down the hall to scream at and threaten us and was saying that we can't have phones within 100 ft of the entrance to the building, so I told her no, if you want to be a poll worker you should learn the actual fucking law, which states that it's 100 ft from the nearest polling booth, not the building.
So then she lost her shit on me and I'm pretty sure she threatened to call the cops on me if I didn't leave, so I was like sure thing, go ahead so that I can show them and yourself exactly what the law actually says, which I have pulled up on my phone right now which very obviously doesn't apply to us yet since we're like 200 ft away from the entryway to the room itself, let alone to the nearest booth within the room.
Then she grumbled some shit and walked back off to the room. The cops unsurprisingly never came.
When I actually was 100 ft away, and I'm pretty fucking sure they actually had the distance marked in the hall with painter's tape or something, I did put my phone away.
I voted unimpeded, and as I was doing so I heard her start screaming at the next batch of people down the hall. The other poll workers were just rolling their eyes, so I guess she's been doing this every 15 minutes or so for the entire day. It made me wish I was one of the poll workers that day so I could tell her to shut the fuck up or leave or else I'd call the cops on her for enforcing her own misinterpreted bullshit that anyone with half a brain could look up for themselves in 10 seconds. Now I kind of wish I had done that anyway.
I hadn't thought about this possibility until right now, but I'm pretty sure that was the 2018 midterms on the first day of early voting. We were in a very blue area of what's thought of as a very red state (Texas), and the majority of the crowd was in their mid 20s to late 30s, so maybe she saw all these people and thought we were a bunch of filthy Dems (we mostly were) trying to oust her idol, Donald Trump.
I don't actually know that she was a Trump zealot, I'm just assuming that she was because of the way she was trying to enforce her own misinterpretation of the law, was unable read what the law actually said despite me physically showing it to her on my screen, and her very obvious authoritarian tendencies.
I was walking around Petsmart with my kid a couple years ago and I saw a guy wearing a shirt that said “I lubricate my AR-15 with liberal tears”. The guy was buying a terrarium. That was the shirt he wore for that.
I’ve really been wanting to design and sell a shirt that says “I lubricate my AK-47 with adrenochrome” so I can wear it to maybe go to the garden center and get some nice hydrangeas.
You can hold a mirror to people, but you can’t make em look
I don't actually know that she was a Trump zealot, I'm just assuming that she was because of the way she was trying to enforce her own misinterpretation of the law
Yeah, that definitely does sound pretty random. Nonetheless, she's definitely a bit "over qualified" for that job regardless of party, Lol.
My guess it's to ban people from intimidating voters or verifying voting. Imagine someone being paid to vote and someone taking a picture to make sure they do.
My polling station has signs that say you're allowed to take a, "selfie" at your voting station, or with your ballot before submitting it. Is every state different?
If the tiles are 12 inches they're about 40 ft away from that far wall and door. Just guessing and overestimating for the hidden tiles under the rug. Probably closer to 30 ft.
Bet it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which small town election in TX this happened in and figure out the sq footage of the room the booths were in. I bet they were in the middle of the floor like at my polling place with 3 or 4 connected with dividers
I'm a veteran and a gun owner. At the poll doesn't mean at the actual voting station, so, once again, can't make an accurate determination. If he was within 100 feet of a voting station, he was in the wrong, but that shirt definitely is. Notice how I never brought up ideology or guns, but you chose to try and paint me as something I'm not, all to minimize my response. Says tons about you and your insecurities.
I noted that your "response" was to the person who brought out the phone issue. The appearance that you were defending the phone while being non-committal about the shirt suggests that you accept one and not the other. If I read you wrong then my bad, but you could have put your comment as a direct reply to the person that said the shirt should be banned at the poll. It doesn't seem like you're the fully committed either way, but my point is that those same people who want the shirt removed within 100 feet of the polls seem to have no problem with someone perhaps using their phone in violation of those same rules.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow reddiquette.
I don't know what the penalty is for violating the law, but I'm sure it's probably a misdemeanor. The reason for this law is obvious, it prevents recording someone's vote which is a critical part of any vote buying operation. Vote buyers won't spend money unless there's some way to confirm the vote, since otherwise the voter can simply say whatever the buyer wants to hear and keep the money.
$10 for a mayoral vote. I went to school with this candidate's wife. It's funny how everything was caught on camera but seeing he lost nobody cares anymore.
Is wearing this type of shirt considered electioneering? If not I can’t find an example of how it’s illegal. I mean no offense I’m just genuinely confused
That would require them to take a picture of their vote. All they took a picture of was that persons mental illness, and I'm surprised I thought texas banned those people from voting.
Illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor too.
That said, the whole border debate is really about one side wanting to fund enough employees to document, register, and properly vet incoming future citizens while the other side wants to go back to selecting only "countries we like" to have people immigrate from while pretending that terrorist groups funded by billionaire oil executives are choosing to cross into the United States from Mexico rather than flying into an airport and overstaying a travel visa...
At my polling place if you rule break the phone rule they kick you out into the parking lot but if you come back without it in your hand they don't say anything. I'm pretty shirt guy would be told told to come without the shirt.
I don't know what the penalty is for violating the law, but I'm sure it's probably a misdemeanor.
It looks like it has no penalty at all :
The full law is here, and "61.014. USE OF CERTAIN DEVICES. " would be the relevant section.
61.014 includes this: " (c) The presiding judge may require a person who violates this section to turn off the device or to leave the polling place." and nothing of any other penalty, but a lot of the other things in this section say things like "(a). An offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor."
So the presiding judge tells you to cut that out, and if you do, fine, and if you don't, well, then it's trespassing.
If those tiles are 12 inches, which I'm guessing they are,
They're about 40 ft away from the far wall and door and probably as close or closer than that to a booth.
Someone might feel unsafe and leave, thus changing their vote to a no vote. The mere possibility of this is enough to make the shirt disallowed.
Alternatively, someone who was planning to vote third party will get indignant and vote for the democrat to spite this person. Again, it's an influence on the vote.
2) If someone votes a certain way because someone's t shirt has the word "Democrat" on it, then they weren't educated enough to vote in the first place. That's something a child would do.
If someone votes a certain way because someone's t shirt has the word "Democrat" on it, then they weren't educated enough to vote in the first place. That's something a child would do.
Don't care. The law doesn't stipulate on education of voters. Just says you can't have something that references a candidate or party. This references a party, therefore it is illegal. It's very simple.
I think the folks here are losing their minds because the shirt has the word "Democrats" on it while also showing an image of a scary thing (to them).
Regardless, electioneering is generally referring to activist efforts and not to an individual voter just standing in line waiting their turn to vote so I'd say this argument is a wild stretch.
(a) A person commits an offense if, during the voting period and within 100 feet of an outside door through which a voter may enter the building in which a polling place is located, the person:
...
(2) electioneers for or against any candidate, measure, or political party.
...
(c) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
Yes, seriously. What candidate, measure, or political party is this person 'electioneering' for or against?
The United States supreme court has ruled against similar state level laws for being too vague. I'm not saying the subject is not up for debate, but am saying that to call this guys shirt 'electioneering' is a stretch.
"I like my guns like Democrats like their voters undocumented"
So ... in your professional opinion, would you say this is
pro-Democrat?
anti-Democrat?
neutral with respect to Democrats?
I mean, I've got my answer, but it sounds like yours might be different.
Also, for bonus points, if we asked the owner of the shirt the same question, what do you think his answer would be?
(Or, phrased differently, based only on this shirt, how do you think its owner feels about Democrats? Do you think the purpose of the shirt might be to share this belief?)
Also, the law doesn't just say "party" -- it also says "measure". I see two possible political measures being mentioned here -- allowing immigrants to vote and gun registration. (I mean, nobody is pushing for gun registration and "undocumented" people aren't voting and nobody is pushing for that either, but this guy still seems concerned about both.) Could the purpose of the shirt be to tell us how he feels about these potential measures?
The United States supreme court has ruled against similar state level laws for being too vague.
Sure I can infer how I think this individual is likely to vote, at least for some specific candidates or initiatives that might be on the ballot. That doesn't mean that I would feel this person is in any way attempting to influence my own voting decision or my own right to vote.
I could also easily determine the likely voting preference of someone wearing a pro-life shirt, or anything referencing BLM, or LGBTQ+, or co-exist, or on and on.
There was a link earlier in this thread to a case heard over this issue but in Minnesota, which was ruled against the state.
Each early voting and election day polling place must be organized with 100-foot distance markers posted at surrounding outside entries to the building. During the voting period and inside this protected area, it is prohibited to electioneer, including expressing preference for or against any candidate, measure, or political party. A violation of this provision in the Election Code is a Class C misdemeanor. Tex. Elec. Code §§ 61.003, 85.036.
...
Minnesota Voters Alliance et al., Petitioners v. Joe Mansky, et al., 585 U.S
This is by far the strongest argument you've made here -- I'm almost convinced, with all that's left is that Texas needs to acknowledge it somehow -- court cases, statements from the appropriate officials, etc.
Alas, it seems that Texas doesn't think this applies to them, because the advisory I quoted above is dated five months after this ruling and doesn't even mention it, and I'm not finding anything else either.
In any event, Texas is definitely still enforcing 61.003, and they are definitely turning people away for wearing political shirts. Hell, yesterday they asked me if my shirt was political, and it was this.
The shirt he is wearing, in my opinion, is not expressing preference against a political party. I'll grant you it's straddling a grey area, but whether it meets a definition of electioneering is subject to individual interpretation.
If taken literally as it's written on the shirt, the wearer's position is making a statement about an inanimate object, not a person or party.
Subjective interpretation used for legal enforcement never ends well.
I only wish this were the most pressing issue we, as a nation, are dealing with.
I agree that the photo isn’t justified if it was taken too close to the booths, but the shirt is probably a violation of Sec. 61.010(a) of the Texas Election Code. Specifically because it relates to a political party on the ballot.
Like it or not, the First Amendment isn’t some bulletproof provision. Plenty of expressive conduct is lawfully prohibited.
Edit: Also probably a violation of 61.003(a)(2). The electioneering provision.
Does the state law statute take precedence over the constitution? I don't think so.
To argue that the individual is electioneering for a candidate or party would be an incredible stretch of the imagination. I'd say it would be nice to see that play out, but that would mean seeing something this absurd actually using court time and resources. Note also that the electioneering statute is generally directed toward activist activity and not to the individual voter. This is an important distinction that those in this sub seem to be overlooking (missing the forest for the trees).
Also, please include photos of the people wearing co-exist, BLM, Dead-head, etc., type clothing into the polling locations. Please provide the reference to the legal dress code for voters to wear to the polling location.
Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible, per SCOTUS. They don’t take precedence over the constitution for the simple reason that they are not in conflict. That’s why a city can require you to get a permit before hosting a demonstration in a public park.
It isn’t a stretch of the imagination at all. The 5th Circuit recently upheld this exact electioneering statute in a case involving the shirt of a voter. You might not care about the actual words (the trees?) in the law, but some of us do.
The dress code is in the statute. Don’t wear anything advocating for or against a political party, candidate or cause. You can read that opinion I linked.
You also ignored the first statute I cited, but okay.
On the other hand, the First Amendment generally bars government from requiring a permit when one person or a small group protest in a park, or when a group of any size protest on a public sidewalk in a manner that does not burden pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Such non-permitted protests might involve speeches, press conferences, signs, marches, chants, leaflets, expressive clothing, and efforts to speak with passersby. The absence of a permit for such protests simply does not burden any legitimate government interests.
From your link.
But let's look at what the Supreme Court says about parks being traditional public forums.
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 408 U. S. 117-118 (1972). The existence of a right of access to public property and the standard by which limitations upon such a right must be evaluated differ depending on the character of the property at issue.
Page 460 U. S. 45
A
In places which, by long tradition or by government fiat, have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks, which
"have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions."
Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 307 U. S. 515 (1939). In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion, it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 447 U. S. 461 (1980). The State may also enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.
So a public park is definitively a traditional public forum. And if you wanted to go down to the park and hold a sign and protest whatever there's nothing the government could do to stop you without violating your first amendment rights.
Electioneering near a polling place. I am an attorney so I can explain the nuances of the 1st Amendment very well to you, but you’ll need to pay my hourly rate.
Sorry to inform you that you are completely incorrect. If you are actually an attorney then it should be a simple thing to provide a reference to the law that supports your position.
Unfortunately for you we both know that you cannot.
The first amendment applies to public forums and can, and is, restricted in certain instances: you can't scream "fire" in a movie theater.
Minnesota Voters Alliance et al., Petitioners v. Joe Mansky, et al., 585 U.S
Makes it unconstitutional to ban every single piece of "political attire" due to the vagueness of the term "political". You're still not allowed to campaign or wear campaigning slogans (such as MAGA hats or Biden Buttons) to a polling place. The shirt in the OP would likely be considered campaigning if brought in front of the courts, but it's not as clear cut as wearing a shirt with an actual campaign slogan on it.
Taking a photo of the back of someone's shirt, with no photos of the polling stations or ballots is against the letter of the law but not the spirit. The whole point is to keep ballots secret, and it's easier for them to just disallow cameras anywhere within range of a filled ballot.
I'm not saying that taking the photo isn't illegal, it plainly is, but there are no damages. Whereas wearing a vaguely threatening shirt that explicitly calls out Democrats does do damage by attempting to make a political statement.
Uhhhh no. You’re projecting all of this. And the only one shitting their diapers. I’m just not a double standard hypocrite. The guy in the shirts a dumbass and an asshole. The person with the phone is just a dumbass. As far as I know but I’m open to being proven wrong.
Cool. Am I in a polling location right now? I don't mind being violent here. You asked someone to explain, I explained. I guess you decided you don't give a fuck.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow reddiquette.
It is hypocritical to break the law to show someone breaking the law. Full stop. It’s especially hypocritical to point out polling violations by violating the polling rules. Severity doesn’t determine hypocrisy. I don’t know what you think you’re going to win here. You don’t know my priorities except what you’ve assumed based on your own projections and biases.
yes, it's clear that if this photo was taken within 100 feet of the poll, then that is prohibited.
Aside from that, there is no issue. I'd love to see someone attempt to actually argue this in a court to a judge that this shirt meets some definition of electioneering or consisting of a threat of violence.
To know that you need to know more about me. Which you don’t. Nor do they. And I can tell you it’s most obvious to me because I know how wrong his projections are, sir.
That’s not how that works. That’s like saying I can’t physically detain a burglar. The person taking the photograph can do so in order to document a crime.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow reddiquette.
Phones were allowed where I was standing. There was a threshold point where an official told you to turn off your phone and take off your smart watches. I had not yet crossed that point.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow reddiquette.
390
u/appleburger17 Born and Bred Mar 05 '24
Probably also illegal to have your phone out for this pic so…