Podcasts about minnesota voters alliance

With just days to go until Election Day and more than 263,000 absentee ballots received by Hennepin County, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the county must form a new election panel overseeing absentee ballots by Friday, Nov. 1. The ruling comes after the Minnesota Republican Party and Minnesota Voter's Alliance argued Hennepin County had not taken the steps to fully exhaust its list of Republican election judges in the county before drawing from outside of the list. The court stopped short of saying that political representation on the panel was unequal, however.For more, MPR News host Cathy Wurzer talks with Andy Cilek, the executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, one of the groups that brought the suit, and Hennepin County auditor Dan Rogan.

The Minnesota Voters Alliance has filed a lawsuit against the Restore the Vote law which became effective on June 1st. The suit challenges the law's constitutionality. The law restores voting rights to people who have been convicted of felonies once they have completed their sentences, including parole or probation. Rep., Frazier says the move is an attempt to suppress the vote.

Tom and Andy talk about the Rochester Country Club's decision to cancel an event by the Center of the American Experiment, a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling stemming from the 2020 election, and the Ukraine war.

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.

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.

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

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)

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

Minnesota Lawyer article on the first known CLE credit revokedDusosky v. Fischbach ends in dismissal after Fischbach resigned from the Senate, took the oath of office for Lieutenant Governor, and was named as Tim Pawlenty's running mateJustice Lillehaug sits for an interview with John Schmidt (who argued State v. Edstrom) for Bench & Bar of Minnesota, and discusses, among other things, his well-known views on unpublished opinionsMichelle MacDonald's disciplinary case suspending her from the practice of law for 60 days, her cert petition to the US Supreme Court, and videos one and two of her being confronted by security at the GOP booth at the Minnesota State Fair in 2014 (and a bonus Sack cartoon of the occasion)Media coverage of Lillehaug vs. MacDonald in 2014, coverage of Hudson vs. MacDonald in 2016, and preliminary thoughts from a reporter and a GOP State Representative on Chutich vs. MacDonald in 2018Justice Chutich's campaign website ( ← SEND MONEY HERE), Chief Justice Gildea's campaign website, Justice Anderson's campaign website, and Justice McKeig's campaign websiteMoorhead lawyer fights two-decade war on circumcisionFeatured tweets from our inaugural monthly "Top Thissen Tweets" segment: #4, #3, #2, #2, #2, #1Opinion in and article about Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, a case issued by a lesser high court that we are sure is trying its bestBackground for our featured case: Birchfield v. North Dakota (SCOTUS), State v. Trahan (SCOM), State v. Thompson (SCOM), and Minnesota Lawyer commentary on the 2016 setCourt of appeals opinion in Johnson v. StateOral argument in Johnson v. StatePost-recording update: The court issued an opinion in Christensen v. Healey on June 20, 2018, authored by Justice Hudson. We discussed this case in our second episode and made fun of the court in this episode for not yet releasing it as of our recording. Read Justice Hudson's opinion here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky | 02/28/18 | Docket #: 16-1435

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.

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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

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