Concord
A new state law in New Hampshire prohibits people from wearing campaign pins, stickers or clothing inside polling places.
Offenders could face a fine of up to $1,000 under the statute, though it’s not clear how strictly the new measure will be enforced.
Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan is recommending moderators tell voters wearing campaign shirts at the polls to cover up. That’s where the poncho could come in handy, he said.
“Electioneering in the polling place is not permitted generally,” Scanlan said. “If you have the same design on a campaign sign as you do on a sweatshirt, it’s effectively the same thing.”
The legislation was filed by state Rep. Dennis Fields, R-Sanbornton, at the Secretary of State’s request, and it flew largely under the radar this year.
State law has for years barred candidates or their workers from distributing or posting campaign material inside the polling place. The rules also restrict where people can hold campaign signs outside the building. Scanlan said the new limits on voter clothing codify what’s been happening in practice.
“Moderators generally have asked them to cover up (campaign pins or shirts) or remove it while they are going through the process of voting,” he said. The change prohibits people from wearing pins, stickers or articles of clothing “intended to influence the action of the voter within the building where the election is being held.”
It’s unclear how moderators will enforce the policy — several in the Concord area said they haven’t yet briefed themselves on the new election laws. The change was in effect for the state primary in September, but the general election pulls greater voter turnout.
In Hanover, Town Clerk Betsy McClain said the new law may force election officials to move beyond the “commonsense” remedies they would suggest if a voter was wearing a T-shirt or other material promoting a candidate. Now, Hanover is stockpiling some large sweaters voters can pull over the offending clothing to go vote, and also may have greeters at the polls tell voters to turn a baseball hat supporting a specific candidate inside out, or to take it off, to vote.
“In our opinion, the law previously allowed for a broader interpretation of electioneering — we would ask folks to zip up sweatshirts over glaring T-shirts or turn their backpacks around if they were emblazoned with bumper stickers, but we did not bounce folks for wearing lapel buttons or less obvious apparel that may be logo’d in a non-obtrusive way,” McClain said via email.
“Now that the law specifically includes articles of clothing, stickers, pins, we need to be more assertive in getting voters to remove/cover these up — which will most assuredly create some new points of conflict.”
Similarly, Lebanon City Clerk Sandi Allard said election officials there also plan to have “some large shirts for voters to wear if necessary” to comply with the new law.
Some voters aren’t happy about the new rule, and say it’s a violation of the First Amendment.
“The legislators did a disservice,” said Roy Fanjoy, a Webster, N.H., resident who heard about the law change at a recent Selectboard meeting. “They don’t want politicking inside, which I agree with, but I think they went overboard.”
Past efforts by the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office to limit outside influence on voters have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Most recently, New Hampshire’s law banning people taking pictures of their completed ballots — ballot selfies — was found by a federal appeals court to infringe on First Amendment rights.
While some clerks display signs telling voters to turn off their cell phones because they might be a distraction to others, Scanlan said there is no legal requirement that they do so.
Fields, the Sanbornton lawmaker, said the new election law is not a freedom of speech issue and is simply meant to stop people from wearing pins, buttons and shirts that could sway or intimidate voters.
At least a handful of other states, including Texas and Maryland, have similar bans on campaign clothing at the voting booth. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an electioneering ban within 100 feet of polling places.
In Vermont, Secretary of State Jim Condos said state law prohibits stickers, campaign literature, buttons, and other political material from being displayed, placed or handed out within buildings holding a polling place.
But election officials are also encouraged to use commonsense with voters.
“My office has long interpreted this provision to prohibit voters from wearing campaign-related buttons, stickers, or clothing within the polling place. However, when training the clerks, we also acknowledge that a determined voter may be difficult to dissuade,” Condos said via email. “We suggest they first ask the person to remove the campaign-related clothing or accessories or to put on an outer piece of clothing that can cover it up. If the person refuses, our advice is simply to move them through the voting process as quickly as possible.”
Election officials also regularly check voting booths to make sure no election material was left behind for other voters.
Those who refuse to cover up a campaign shirt or remove a sticker shouldn’t be turned away on Election Day, Scanlan said. But a moderator can report them to the state Attorney General’s Office.
That office is aware of the statute and expects moderators to act in accordance with the law, said Assistant Attorney General Brian Buonamano.
“We would not anticipate needing to turn to civil penalties,” he said.
The new law raises questions about what could be considered a campaign shirt or pin. Moderators will likely use their discretion.
Michael Gfroerer, moderator in Concord’s Ward 5, said his approach has depended on voters’ behavior. Someone wearing a campaign pin who comes in to vote then leaves likely wouldn’t be a problem, he said. But if someone shows up in campaign clothing and then sticks around inside “showing off,” that could be considered politicking.
“We try to be reasonable,” said Gfroerer, who has been a moderator for the past 15 years. “I’ve had no problem with this in the past.”
Valley News staff writer John P. Gregg contributed to this report.