2230

VETOES

May 24, 1979
Honorable Harry Hughes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Re: Senate Bill 569

Dear Governor Hughes:

We have reviewed Senate Bill 569, a bill which makes it
a criminal offense to wear and display certain items of
political advertising in or near polling places. Because
this bill violates the free speech guarantee of the Federal
and State Constitutions, we do not approve it.

As passed by the General Assembly, the bill amends
Sec. 24-23(a) of Article 33, the Election Code, to add a new
paragraph (5). This new paragraph makes it a criminal
offense to wear and display any article of clothing, badge,
pin or device which supports or opposes any candidate,
slate, ticket or party, or relates to any ballot question.
There is an exception to this prohibition for the carrying
of a personal copy of a sample ballot or campaign literature
for personal use. It is our view that this prohibition
violates the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution
which guarantees the right of free speech and the equivalent
provision in Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of
Rights.

Although the protection of the First Amendment is not
confined to the "exposition of ideas," it is well understood
that one of its major purposes is to protect the expression
of political views. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14
(1976). Moreover, the protection of this Amendment extends
not only to pure speech but to "symbolic speech" as well,
including the wearing of articles of clothing such as
armbands which are communicative in nature. Tinker v. Pes
Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503,
505-506 (1969). When a prohibition is directed at speech
itself and the speech is intimately related to the process
of governing, the Supreme Court has said that "the State may
prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is
compelling, and the burden is on the Government to show the
existence of such an interest. Even then, the State must
employ means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary
abridgement." First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti,

____U.S.___, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 1421 (1978). Where the issue is

a restriction on "symbolic speech," that is a mixture of
speech and non—speech elements, the Supreme Court has said:

"[W]e think it clear that a government regulation
is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional
power of the Government; it furthers an important or
substantial governmental interest; if the governmental