Debate #1 Practice of Case Law Flashcards
Facts of the State of Yorksey vs. Day case
There was a gubernatorial eleection coming up soon with the candidates Stark and Morales
Incident with Graham
Morales was against police brutality and for more regulation of law enforcement. Stark was for upholding the police and more law enforcement
There were many protests as a result of Grahams death and hashtags for Graham who died
Because of the upcoming gubernatorial election Yorksey put a ban on all political paraphanelia in or near the polling place and said that any events in support of a political party had to take place a reasonable distance away from the polling place
Day, a young activist held a vigil on the day of the gubernatorial elelction of Graham 125ft away from the polling place. She and other people were given citations by police officers because of this
Christine Day also won a “Music of Niore” button and was given a citation for that, although she was allowed to vote and wasnt arrested
She saw people where “Bleed Blue” on their facemasks being easily waved in by police officials
The vigil took place on the day before Day went to vote. The police officer who cited her on the day of the vigil was the same one who cited her at the polling place
The vigil took place before Day went to vote.
Although the issues that arose from Grahams death were controversial, they were not official ballot questions.
Facts in NAACP vs Claiborne Hardware Co
Black citizens for Port Gibson Mississippi made a list of demands for racial equality and integration. The black residents who brought the demands didn’t get satisfactory results so after an anonymous vote by several hundred black people the NAACP placed a boycott on local businesses by white owners. The boycott had been going on from 1966-1969 at the time that the suit was filed. A few weeks after Charles Evars first speech a loose change of violent events took place. Towards the filing of the case a young African American was killed and this also resulted in a lot of tension.
Issues and Rules in NAACP v CHO
Issues: Whether the petitioners rights were protected by the Federal Constitution and whether liability can be imposed on the NAACP because of the violent events that took place during the boycott.
Rules: To punish association with the a group that promotes violence there must be “clear proof that a defendant specifically intends to accomplish [the aims of the organization] by a resort to violence”
Analysis and Conclusion in NAACP v CHO
Analysis; The nonviolent elements of of the petitioners activities during the boycott are under the protection of the First Amendment. The NAACP and the petitioners are not directly responsible for violence even though there were violent acts throughout the boycott because because the organization needs to have harmful aims and goals with the intention to carry them out.
Conclusion: The judgment is reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Facts Minnesota’s Voting Alliance vs Mansky
Facts: Five days before the November 10, 2010 elections the MVA and similar groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in order to challenge the political apparel ban based on the First Amendment. Because of the lawsuit officials in the Hennepin and Ramsey Counties sent out Election Day Policies to electoral judges. On election Day several members of the MVA came to the polling places with apparel that was seen as being political.
Issue and Rules for MVA vs. M
Issue: Whether the political apparel ban that Minnesota enforced violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
Rules: There are three different types of government controlled forums.
a. traditional public forum
b. government designated public forums
c. a non public forum
There are different levels of protects for each type of of forum.
What type of review exists for restrictions of the first amendment in designated public forums and traditional public forums
For traditional and designated public forums the strictest scrutiny applies for limitations on freedom of speech and expression
What type of review exists for restrictions of the first amendment in non public forums
review of the standard of reasonableness in light of the purpose that is served by the forum.
Analysis and Conclusion for MVA vs. M
Analysis: The court ruled that it isn’t unconstitutional for the state to restrict things in order to protect voters as they make decisions at the poll. But it also criticized the states law for not being workable and applicable.
Conclusion: The decision was reversed and remanded to the lower court for further review
Marlin vs. DC Board of Elections and Ethics Facts
Marlin went to a polling place during the primary elections with a campaign sticker on. As a result the poll workers made it difficult for him to vote. He was later told by the District Election Board that he was not allowed to enter the polling place with his campaign sticker on but he would be able to vote on the curbside.
Issue and Rules of M vs. DCBEE
Issue: Whether the Boards enforcement reflects reasonable, viewpoint neutral regulation of polling places and whether it violates their First Amendment rights
Rules: A content based regulation of that restricts freedom of expression in a traditional or designated forum can only be restricted if it serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve it.
Analysis and Conclusion M vs. DCBEE
Analysis: Since the limits on polling place speech are long standing it isn’t reasonable to believe that it has the same rights as traditional public forums and designated public forums. There is clear proof that the polling place is a non public forum because the activity that takes place there isn’t consistent with expressive activity. Also it doesn’t matter that the statute is too broad for the situation because since its a non public forum there is no need for the law to be narrowly tailored.
Conclusion: The Boards enforcement of political activity is reasonable in light of the purpose in which the forum serves so the regulations do not violate the First Amendment. The judgement of the district court is affirmed
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Facts
Facts: John F. Tinker, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt chose to wear black armbands protesting the Vietnam War to school after a meeting. School officials heard about the meeting and decided to ban the black armbands because they were afraid of disturbance. If they didnt they would be suspended until they came back to school without the armbands. As a result the students wore the armbands on one day and didnt come back until te time for wearing the armbands had expired.
Issues and Rules for T vs. DMICSD
Issues: Whether the prohibition of the black armbands are unconstitutional or not.
Whether fear of disturbance is enough to constitutionally limit the students freedom of expression
Rules: In order to prohibit freedom of speech in school there needs to be proof that the student is disrupting classwork, that their actions result in substantial disorder, or invasion of the rights of others.
Analysis and Conclusion for T vs. DMICSD
Analysis: Students freedom of expression cannot be prohibited unless it causes disruption or disorder in the classroom or on school premises and if it encroaches on the rights of others. Additionally fear of disturbance because of an unpopular or controversial opinion is not enough to prohibit students Constitutional rights.
Conclusion: The constitution does not permit state officials to deny students form of expression unless there is proof that it will cause a major disruption. They reversed and remanded the case.
