I don't know. Since the bible isn't a politicIan,party, or proposition, I don't know that the shirt would be covered under the statute (though i only read the comment by Watson, above, not the actual statute). And I'm not thrilled with such statues in general.

Thatsaid, it was likely a poll worker error (if an error at all) rather than intentional religious discrimination.

Which party or what proposition is on the side of the devil? I haven't seen that political ad yet, and I've seen plenty.

Come on, there's one party billing itself as the party of the faithful and it ain't the Democrats.

I for one am just so glad that they are finally cracking down on that whole voter intimidation thing... At least where us ignorant Christian white folks are concerned. Because, you know, for years tee shirts have been known to cause all sorts of disruptions and chaos at the polls... I, for one, am so relieved they are finally putting an end to this madness. Soooo... I suppose those two Black Panthers in Philly will be coming to trial for voter intimidation soon?

*chirp chirp*

This tee shirt thing is stupid law to begin with, IMO. I'm gonna change my vote to Obama because I saw a tee shirt that said "Obama 2012!"? A "Vote the Bible" tee shirt is considered offensive and "intimidating" but it's perfectly okay for two Black men to stand outside a polling station screaming "White Devil" at white citizens? Yeah...

I'm not saying she wasn't wrong for breaking the law. Whether or not I agree with the law is moot... the laws is the law and one must either obey it or work to get it changed. However, a little consistency the enforcement of this law would be nice. Buuuut never mind that. Let’s just keep putting all our recourses into this piddly shit. That makes SO much more sense.

What happens if you wear all blue or all red?

A few thing on the comments so far
If this womans shirt said "I am voting the bible" I wouldnt have a problem, but her shirt was tell others how to vote, which is illegal within a certain distance no matter HOW you go about it

And no resorces were wasted on this, and the Black panthers, were in another state, so unless the justice department files charges against this woman its a bit much to claim waste of government money or racial hatred, or religious persecution

A tee shirt stating "Vote the Bible" is no more "telling" you how to vote than a poster on the side of the rode that says "Vote (candidate)". See, there is this thing called "personal choice". Just because someone is wearing a tee shirt that says something, doesn't mean you have to do it. There is also this thing called the 1st amendment which pretty much guarantees her right to wear anything she wants, no matter how offensive it "may" be to some people. A tee shirt is NOT going to influence someone’s vote, anyway nor it is going to cause any sort of disruption to the process. To imply that it will is just plain stupid. I'd bet no one even noticed it, or cared, until it was pointed out.

How is wearing a shirt like that really even violating any "electioneering" laws, though? If she has worn a "Vote Romney/Obama" shirt, I can see the argument against her. She wasn't passing out flyers, rallying, or in anyway campaigning for any candidate in which case I can see a case for electioneering accusations; she wore a shirt that said "Vote the bible." The bible isn't an option on the ballot. And, before anyone says "Well, the Republicans are ALL about the bible so she must be a Republican and therefore must be pushing for Romney." Stop. Obama's family attends regular services. He's used the words "God" in previous speeches. Obama offered grace at his last state dinner. He's said "God Bless America" multiple times. So it's also arguable that he, too, believes in the bible.

I think the Black Panthers case, while in another state, does compare, because the words "voter intimidation" were used in the multiple reasons behind why this woman wasn't allowed to wear it. Voter intimidation rules are a federally mandated for national elections. And, the federal rules that are in place against that were enforced for her, but not for them. Those two men were permitted to not only vote, but to continue their racist tirades but this woman was almost denied her right to vote because of a tee shirt. If that's not complete and utter hypocrisy and inconsistency in this laws enforcement, I don't know what is.

so... the problem was having clothing that had the word "VOTE" associated with some idea... right?

So if I had a shirt that said Vote For the Pantsless Wookie.

That would be bad too, yeah?

So would the sticker that said "I Voted" be considered electioneering passive aggressiveness?

Please note that many of the Candidates for Prez/VP Identify as Christian... so what political philosophy IS that ACTUALLY?

Also? What if she had this tattooed on her arm? Would she not be allowed to vote?

If it said "Vote Feminist." Would that also be bad?

Yes,
if any party had ever claimed the pantsless wookie as part of its platform in the same way they have the bible,
yes,
only if you hung around the polling place,
doesnt matter,
yes?,
what if indeed,
as long as it was being displayed yes until she covered it,
yes and for sooo many reasons beyond the legal one

If the poll workers presented it as "It's illegal electioneering", then that would be fine, although it is really reaching for an excuse in this case, but 'because (it) "may be offensive to some people." '? No. That is a completely illegitimate reason to deny her. For the Public Affairs person to come back and say it was because of election law was just covering their asses after the fact.

Free speech is not absolute, and this is one of the times it is curtailed -- for all. You may not agree with it, but it keeps, for example, volunteers at polling places from telling people to vote one way or another.

I understand that. Like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, just because one has the right to free speech, doesn't mean there aren't limitations on its use. However, this isn’t the same thing, in my opinion. Those rights are generally curtailed to avoid harm to the public. What harm is a tee shirt going to cause?

I understand the law as it applies so I am not saying the woman is in the right for breaking it, but we aren't talking about a woman parading up and down the line, handing out flyers, or campaigning for a candidate or cause; Let's use a little common sense here. It's. A. Tee. Shirt... that no one likely even noticed until the poll volunteer pointed out. And even then, I highly doubt anyone made any connection to any particular candidate off the bat. IF they did, I HIGHLY doubt it changed their minds. And, I believe that particular tee shirt even falls in a grey area, IMO, of what is considered “electioneering”.

Yes. I acknowledge it’s illegal and the volunteer had every business asking her to cover it, but it's not about whether or not I agree with the law, it's about the lack of consistency in enforcing it, at least, in regards to certain assumed political affiliations. My point is, if the laws aren't going to be enforced consistently, I say, why bother having them at all?

Besides the Black Panthers case, which I've already talked to death, I recently witnessed one of the candidates for a local election, here, campaigning for herself in line at early voting. She wasn't told to stop. She's a democrat, for the record. If a Republican candidate had done that, I damn well guarantee they would have been blasted publicly, and possibly escorted away. I’ve seen local candidates get booed or cheered when they are in the line or coming out of the polling booth by other local voters. Surely, that’s illegal, too? But, none of the volunteers seem to mind when it’s the “popular” candidate being cheered.

I just talked to my sister about this as well. She's in Michigan. She saw a gentleman wearing an Obama pin in line. He was not questioned. Another gentleman in line to vote was wearing a hat that said, "Romney/Ryan 2012". He was asked to remove it. I have to believe, in this case, that there was an absolute bias in who was allowed to express their choice of candidate and who wasn't, despite the law. Even if bias is not the case here, and the poll volunteer really was just doing their job, it’s not a stretch to believe it could be bias based on what I have personally witnessed.

A tee shirt stating "Vote the Bible" is no more "telling" you how to vote than a poster on the side of the rode that says "Vote (candidate)".

Which poster is also illegal if placed within the confines of the polling area (I think it's 100 feet in Texas, but I am not sure of the exact boundaries).

My problem with this whole thing is that the idiots at txvalues said this:

"or cover up the words 'Vote the Bible' because they 'may be offensive to some people'."

And I don't believe for ONE minute that this woman was asked to cover the saying on the tee shirt because it "may be offensive." I think that was made up out of whole cloth (so to speak) to sound much more inflammatory than it actually was. The poll workers don't give a damn if the saying is offensive - they likely agreed with her, knowing how religious many Texans are, but it's MUCH more effective for the complainers to say that it was called "offensive." And people - especially that sort - believe it because they LOVE to feel persecuted. It advances their cause.

Amy and Luljp have this 100% correct. It's illegal in Texas to electioneer near a polling place, and if she had stayed just a little bit further away, outside the perimeter, she wouldn't have been challenged at all. Only once she entered the polling perimeter (to vote) was she required to cover the saying.

In other words, despite how they may have personally felt about the tee shirt, these poll workers were doing their jobs. What a concept!

Duh. Well if I had read all the way to the end of the story I'd have seen that it is, indeed 100 feet. And 100 feet really isn't very far.

This crap is going to have me crying like a four-year-old girl. Just a few more days...

"Come on, there's one party billing itself as the party of the faithful and it ain't the Democrats."

And that bears some thought.

What are they faithful to, and do you really want to be identified with that?

This is interesting to me. My Children's Room is right across from where the people go in to vote (the library is a Voting Precinct in my city). And in all the years they've been doing this, I've never seen someone get asked to leave because their wearing a candidate's shirt. Even the contentious 2008 election, which was pretty heated. I do wonder if it is consistently enforced throughout all polling places.

That being said, our poll workers are awesome about patrolling the grounds for signs, and really good about enforcing the rules for advocacy on the property.

Heck, Amy, we're so far apart on religion. I wish I had one. You seemingly wish nobody did or at least that they'd stfu.

In DC there ain't but 2 or 3 RethugliKKKans anyway. Lots of churchy folk though. So is the call for people who have a particular set of values to vote those values partisan in Texas, but not in DC? This logic wobbles.

So let's attack it, root & branch: I claim that to get from "bible" to "particular vote" even in just the Texas context relies on the squishy slimy [-1 for name calling, but I just.can't.resist] rhetoric of disparate impact.

1) Produce arbitrary set of categories.
2) Demonstrate categorical correlations in impact.
3) Profit!

It's post hoc ergo propter hoc in statistical drag. Fuggedabout the ability to prove anything by casting the categories just so. That's just a bonus.

In parting, how about that unbiased headline? Good to know what to think about these little news snippets. Hey, wait!... We're here in large part because we love your passionate advocacy. But I gotta tell you advocacy is stronger if you don't use cheap framing tricks. They make you look like a propagandist.