This is the Kator Daily Podcast for Monday, February 26, 2018.

I'm Kima Brown.

The Supreme Court this week takes up the First Amendment implications of a blanket prohibition on wearing clothing

containing political messages at the polling place. Is the Minnesota law too

broad? When FAW is an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation that is representing the Minnesota Voters

Alliance before the Supreme Court. We spoke about the case last week. This seems like a case that

isn't that important, you know? It's whether or not somebody can wear a

t-shirt at a very very specific time and place. Why did the court take it do you

think? Well I think the court took it just because the court has been very protective of free speech and in fact it is an important issue for my clients and other voters across the country because

t-shirts are an essential way for someone to express his or her political opinions and what better time to

express your political viewpoints then on election day. For example, our clients

here were just wearing a t-shirt that said don't tread on me with a logo of a

tea party the local tea party on the shirt but the our challenge really is trying

to vindicate the free speech rights of voters and

other states who are wearing shirts that say things like Chamber of Commerce

AFL CIO or N double ACP. This law is so broad that it bans all of those t-shirts and subjects them to

misdemeanor penalties.

Detail for me the facts of this case. You've spelled out a few of them.

So our client Andy Seelik was showed up to vote in 2010 wearing the Don't T-T

shirt with a picture of the Gatsun flag and a Tea Party logo and the election

judge which is a poll worker in Minnesota basically told him that he couldn't go to

vote because he had that shirt that said Tea Party and Minnesota law prohibits you from wearing any sort of

...