The Rhode Island Board of Elections is revising a proposal to ban voters and poll workers from carrying political paraphernalia — such as T-shirts, buttons and pins — within 50 feet of state polling places.
If the ban were enacted, individuals could be asked to conceal political paraphernalia while at the polling place, said Ray Marcaccio, the board's attorney. He said that no one, under any condition, would be restricted from voting due to the ban.
The purpose of the ban is to "make sure that when you go into the polling place, you do so without any unnecessary campaign activity," Marcaccio said. "You have a place to quietly think and exercise your vote."
The board's commissioners rejected the proposal Nov. 8, when one of them objected to its lack of clarity on enforcement. Board of Elections staff, who are currently redrafting the proposal, aim to present a version to the board's commissioners for ratification at the end of January, said Bob Rapoza, director of elections for the board.
"One thing we would address in the next draft is that the purpose of the regulation would not be to prohibit one from voting," Marcaccio said.
Similar regulations already exist across the country. "Passive electioneering" — the term commonly used to represent the practice of influencing individuals' votes through conscious decisions like personal dress and action — is already prohibited in six states.
"There's history here," said Wendy Schiller, associate professor of political science. The idea behind the ban, she said, is over 100 years old.
Still, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have opposed restrictions on passive electioneering, calling them an infringement of First Amendment rights.
But in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the inside of a polling place is not a public forum and therefore the restrictions do not violate the First Amendment.
The benefit of "having a neutral voting space" as regulated by the proposal "is not a violation of free speech that cannot be tolerated by society," Schiller said.
New technologies further complicate the debate, Marcaccio said. He suggested that cell phones, iPads and laptops — all easily portable items — present a danger to neutral voting, because people can easily access campaign materials to influence voters directly before they enter the voting booth.
The ban, though not set to pass until at least January, may "encourage greater voting participation," Schiller said, because citizens may "feel more free to go to the ballot booth and feel that their vote is as much their own as possible."
