Douglas County voter Bundy Cobb could have been threatened with criminal prosecution and was refused the right to vote because he was wearing a khaki hat with the logo “NRA Instructor.” Let that sink in for a minute.
Vietnam veteran Cobb and his wife Kelly have five children and six grandchildren. In retirement, he became a National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor, focusing his efforts on gun safety. He wears a hat with a logo, “NRA Instructor.” He and Kelly vote in every election. In October 2014, Cobb went to the Douglasville courthouse to vote early.
As he signed in and showed his photo identification, a poll worker instructed him that he needed to remove his “NRA Instructor” hat or else he wouldn’t be allowed to vote. He was told it was illegal “campaigning.” He was told, as was Fox5 TV in Atlanta covering the story, “The NRA is associated with the Republicans.”
This was, he was told, the county’s policy. A policy to prohibit voters from wearing non-campaign clothing that might offend or bother someone at the expense of a fundamental constitutional right. A policy of voter suppression.
Had he chosen to stand his ground and insist on voting with his hat on, he could have been subject to arrest, imprisonment, and a hefty fine.
Now to the hat. What if a voter arrived at the same polling place wearing a hat with a labor union logo? Would the officials have taken the position that such a hat was “too closely tied to the Democrats?” Absurd? Of course it is. But that’s where this action puts us.
The issue caught fire with the blogosphere and national media. Cobb reports thousands upon thousands of supportive contacts on his Facebook page. After Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a federal constitutional lawsuit on the matter in December 2014, several important developments took place:
Attorney General Sam Olens issued an Opinion on O.C.G.A. § 21-2-414 dealing with prohibited distribution and display of ‘campaign materials.’ General Olens wrote, “[w]ere O.C.G.A. § 21-2-414(a) to be read as restricting expressive material beyond those specific subjects at issue at the poll, it would likely run afoul of the First Amendment . . . if [the statute] were understood to reach speech other than campaign speech involving candidates and issues at the poll, it could be unconstitutional.” (Opinion of Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General of Georgia, March 20, 2015.)
Noting the importance of the constitutional voting rights issues raised in the litigation, the Georgia General Assembly in March began consideration of Senate Bill 199, designed to further define the term ‘campaign materials’ to protect Georgia voters from arbitrary decisions by local elections officials. State Sen. Rick Jeffares introduced the bill, which will be considered in the 2016 legislative session. The bill defines prohibited ‘campaign material’ to mean any printed material referring to 1) a candidate whose name appears on the ballot, 2) a referendum which appears on the ballot, or 3) a political party or body which has a nominee or nominees on the ballot.
In July, the Douglas County Board of Elections and Registration (BOER) adopted a formal policy forbidding poll workers and elections officials from banning persons who are wearing clothing or displaying materials that are not directly related to candidates or issues on the ballot.
The BOER also issued a public apology letter to Cobb, acknowledging that “you should not have been asked to remove your NRA Instructor hat, and I am sorry that you were asked to do so.” The apology letter cites the new policy adopted by the Board “to ensure that it protects the rights of all persons in or around polling places in Douglas County.”
So why is this important? It’s about voting, our most protected and fundamental exercise of civic rights and responsibilities. The chilling effect on voters generally is immediate and sharp.
For Cobb, the reasoning is clear. His goal from the outset was to stop this type of discretionary, arbitrary use of government power over the right to vote. “It could be any one of us at any time, and it’s just not right,” said Cobb. Amen, and thanks to his courage, it shouldn’t happen again – at least in Georgia.
The author is the executive director and chief legal counsel of the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation that represents Bundy Cobb.
