Podcasts about minnesota voters alliance

Share on
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit
Copy link to clipboard
  • 14PODCASTS
  • 20EPISODES
  • 30mAVG DURATION
  • ?INFREQUENT EPISODES
  • Aug 23, 2021LATEST

POPULARITY

20112012201320142015201620172018201920202021


Best podcasts about minnesota voters alliance

Latest podcast episodes about minnesota voters alliance

Justice & Drew
Hour 3: A Power Grab

Justice & Drew

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 23, 2021 44:27


Kim Crockett from the Minnesota Voters Alliance joins Justice & Drew to discuss the replacement bill that Democrats have come up with after the "For the People Act" failed in the senate, and how it is not voting progress - it's a power grab.

New House Republican Caucus Audio
Members of the New House Republican Caucus hold a "STOP WALZ" Press Conference

New House Republican Caucus Audio

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 7, 2020 38:42


Governor Tim Walz's mandatory mask mandate has created a conflict between laws. Executive Order 20-81, issued July 22, makes it illegal to appear in public without a face mask; however, Minnesota Statute 609.735 states that wearing face coverings in public settings is also a violation of the law.   The Minnesota Voters Alliance, as well as a group of Minnesota voters, have filed a complaint stating that this combination of laws is suppressing political participation and in-person voting in the upcoming elections. With Minnesota's primary being only 1 week away, Attorney Erick Kaardal is expecting to have a hearing within the week.

New House Republican Caucus Audio
Interview with Susan Erickson - Minnesota Voters Alliance 8/17/2019

New House Republican Caucus Audio

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 5, 2019 2:31


Interview with Susan Erickson - Minnesota Voters Alliance 8/17/2019 The Sue Jeffers Show, New House Republican Caucus members guest hosting.

Minnesota Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Cilek v. Minnesota Secretary of State, A18-1140

Minnesota Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 5, 2019


Respondents Andrew Cilek and Minnesota Voters Alliance (collectively Alliance) brought an action claiming that the Secretary of State unlawfully refused to disclose certain voter registration data requested under the Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01–.90 (2018). The Alliance requested access to “non-private government data” contained in the Statewide Voter Registration System, but the Secretary of State refused to provide access to data that was not part of the “public information list” under Minn. Stat. § 201.091 (2018). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Alliance. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that “data on (1) registered voter status, (2) reason for a challenge, and (3) voter history are public data” under the Data Practices Act and Minn. Stat. § 201.091. On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether voter registration data other than data in the “public information list” is accessible as public data. (Ramsey County)

So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast
Ep. 85 Wen Fa of the Pacific Legal Foundation

So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 15, 2019 37:27


On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we are joined by Wen Fa, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation who regularly litigates free speech cases. One of his most high-profile cases was the 2018 Supreme Court case Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, dealing with a polling-place dress code in Minnesota. Show notes: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky Ostrewich v. Trautman Kotler v. Webb www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Teleforum
Courthouse Steps Decision: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 15, 2018 18:59


Most states have laws that prohibit electioneering within polling places on election day, and the Supreme Court has upheld buffer zones that extend this prohibition to areas immediately surrounding polling places. But Minnesota law went beyond electioneering and prohibits wearing “a political badge, political button, or other political insignia . . . at or about the polling place[.]” This included Gadsden flag t-shirts, buttons demanding to be asked for voter identification, or apparel referencing an organization such as the AFL-CIO. In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, the Court ruled 7-2 that the law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.Featuring:Elizabeth Slattery, Legal Fellow and Appellate Advocacy Program Manager, Edwin Meese, The Heritage Foundation Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Teleforum
Courthouse Steps Decision: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 15, 2018 18:59


Most states have laws that prohibit electioneering within polling places on election day, and the Supreme Court has upheld buffer zones that extend this prohibition to areas immediately surrounding polling places. But Minnesota law went beyond electioneering and prohibits wearing “a political badge, political button, or other political insignia . . . at or about the polling place[.]” This included Gadsden flag t-shirts, buttons demanding to be asked for voter identification, or apparel referencing an organization such as the AFL-CIO. In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, the Court ruled 7-2 that the law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.Featuring:Elizabeth Slattery, Legal Fellow and Appellate Advocacy Program Manager, Edwin Meese, The Heritage Foundation Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

SCOTUScast
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 27, 2018 12:06


On February 28, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, a case involving a Minnesota statute that broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place. Minnesota Statute § 211B.11 prohibits voters from wearing a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia… at or about the polling place on primary or election day.” State election officials indicated that “political” apparel included “issue oriented material designed to influence or impact voting” or “material promoting a group with recognizable political views.” If a person arrived at a polling place wearing a political item, the election judges were instructed to ask the individual to remove or cover the item. If the individual refused to comply he or she would still be allowed to vote, but the person’s name and address would be recorded for a potential misdemeanor prosecution. An association of various Minnesota political groups known as Election Integrity Watch (EIW) sued the Secretary of State and county election officials in federal district court, alleging that the statute was invalid--both facially and as-applied--under the First Amendment, and violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause due to selective enforcement. Although the district court initially dismissed all claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed that judgment with respect to EIW’s as-applied First Amendment claim, and remanded the case. On remand, the district court again ruled against EIW, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On a second appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment--but the United States Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to determine whether Minnesota Statute Section 211B.11 is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.To discuss the case, we have Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

SCOTUScast
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 27, 2018 12:06


On February 28, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, a case involving a Minnesota statute that broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place. Minnesota Statute § 211B.11 prohibits voters from wearing a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia… at or about the polling place on primary or election day.” State election officials indicated that “political” apparel included “issue oriented material designed to influence or impact voting” or “material promoting a group with recognizable political views.” If a person arrived at a polling place wearing a political item, the election judges were instructed to ask the individual to remove or cover the item. If the individual refused to comply he or she would still be allowed to vote, but the person’s name and address would be recorded for a potential misdemeanor prosecution. An association of various Minnesota political groups known as Election Integrity Watch (EIW) sued the Secretary of State and county election officials in federal district court, alleging that the statute was invalid--both facially and as-applied--under the First Amendment, and violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause due to selective enforcement. Although the district court initially dismissed all claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed that judgment with respect to EIW’s as-applied First Amendment claim, and remanded the case. On remand, the district court again ruled against EIW, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On a second appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment--but the United States Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to determine whether Minnesota Statute Section 211B.11 is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.To discuss the case, we have Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Audio Arguendo
SCOTUS Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, Case No. 16-1435

Audio Arguendo

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 2, 2018


SCOTUS 101
#222: What Grinds John Roberts's Gears

SCOTUS 101

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 1, 2018 30:59


This week, Elizabeth & Tiffany talk about a snippy exchange between Roberts and Breyer, and they break down recent decisions and oral arguments in Janus, Microsoft, and Minnesota Voters Alliance. They also chat with the queen of SCOTUS advocacy, Lisa Blatt. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Bloomberg Law
Supreme Court Hears Political Polling Attire Case

Bloomberg Law

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 28, 2018 15:45


Dan Weiner, senior counsel at the Brennan Center, discusses the Supreme Court case Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Joe Mansky, which will decide whether citizens are allowed to wear political attire to polling places when voting. Plus, Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight, discusses a Supreme Court decision to overturn a ruling that had guaranteed periodic bond hearings, and the possibility of release, for thousands of foreigners who are being detained while facing deportation. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Teleforum
Courthouse Steps: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 28, 2018 43:23


Most states have laws that prohibit electioneering within polling places on election day, and the Supreme Court has upheld buffer zones that extend this prohibition to areas immediately surrounding polling places. But Minnesota law goes beyond electioneering and prohibits wearing “a political badge, political button, or other political insignia . . . at or about the polling place[.]” This includes Gadsden flag t-shirts, buttons demanding to be asked for voter identification, or apparel referencing an organization such as the AFL-CIO. In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, the Court will rule whether the law is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.Featuring:Mr. Stephen Klein, Attorney, Pillar of Law Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Bloomberg Law
Supreme Court Hears Political Polling Attire Case

Bloomberg Law

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 28, 2018 15:45


Dan Weiner, senior counsel at the Brennan Center, discusses the Supreme Court case Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Joe Mansky, which will decide whether citizens are allowed to wear political attire to polling places when voting. Plus, Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight, discusses a Supreme Court decision to overturn a ruling that had guaranteed periodic bond hearings, and the possibility of release, for thousands of foreigners who are being detained while facing deportation. They speak with Bloomberg’s June Grasso. 

Teleforum
Courthouse Steps: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 28, 2018 43:23


Most states have laws that prohibit electioneering within polling places on election day, and the Supreme Court has upheld buffer zones that extend this prohibition to areas immediately surrounding polling places. But Minnesota law goes beyond electioneering and prohibits wearing “a political badge, political button, or other political insignia . . . at or about the polling place[.]” This includes Gadsden flag t-shirts, buttons demanding to be asked for voter identification, or apparel referencing an organization such as the AFL-CIO. In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, the Court will rule whether the law is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.Featuring:Mr. Stephen Klein, Attorney, Pillar of Law Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Cato Daily Podcast
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Cato Daily Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 26, 2018 8:16


Can the state ban you from wearing any political message at the polling place? Wen Fa is an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. We discussed his case before the Supreme Court, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Cato Event Podcast
Political Speech at the Polling Place: A Preview of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Cato Event Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 22, 2018 82:11


On February 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, an important First Amendment case that could clarify voters' speech rights nationwide. Lead plaintiff Andy Cilek (executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance) voted in the 2010 election in a Tea Party T-shirt that said "Don't tread on me." Because Minnesota prohibits badges, buttons, or other insignia that promote a group with "recognizable political views," at polling places an election official delayed Cilek from voting and took down his name and address for potential prosecution. Cilek sued to have the law struck down. Throughout litigation, the government has embraced the sheer breadth of Minnesota's ban on political apparel. In addition to prohibiting Tea Party apparel, the ban extends to apparel featuring the logo of the Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, NRA, NAACP, and countless other organizations that might be associated with a political viewpoint. Cilek asks the Supreme Court to invalidate the law as an overbroad restriction on expression. Cato filed a brief in this case, arguing that the Court should look with skepticism at a law, like Minnesota's, that targets core political speech. Please join us for a discussion of one of the most important First Amendment cases of the year a few days before argument. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2018 45:05


This week Brett and Nazim are "peak Brett and Nazim", as the Brett crows about the Eagles winning the Super Bowl and Nazim discusses how to improve voting districts.  In addition to covering the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision which declared the district maps unconstitutional, the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is also discussed, which covers whether statutes banning political apparel at voting stations violate the First Amendment.  The law technically starts at (06:48), but there's some turbulence until like the ten minute mark.

Closing Argument
What it is like to vote in Minnesota (w/ Minnesota Voters Alliance representative Dan McGrath)

Closing Argument

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 18, 2017 39:41


Closing Argument with Walter Hudson airs weeknights 9-11 p.m. on KTLK Twin Cities News Talk AM 1130 & 103.5 FM.

Closing Argument
What it is like to vote in Minnesota (w/ Minnesota Voters Alliance representative Dan McGrath)

Closing Argument

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 18, 2017 39:41


Closing Argument with Walter Hudson airs weeknights 9-11 p.m. on KTLK Twin Cities News Talk AM 1130 & 103.5 FM.