On February 17, the U.S. Supreme Court asked Florida to file a response brief in Citizens for Police Accountability Political Committee v Browning, 09-861. The issue is whether Florida is violating the Constitution by permitting exit pollsters to work within 25 feet of the polling place, and yet not letting petitioners work within 100 feet.
Both exit pollsters, and petitioners, only want to talk to voters on their way out of the polling place. The 11th circuit had upheld the discriminatory treatment. The 11th circuit opinion is reported at 572 F.3d 1213 (June 25, 2009). The petitioners in this case wanted to collect signatures on a local initiative petition.
When the U.S. Supreme Court is asked to hear an appeal, and the Court responds by asking the other side to file a brief, this shows that the Court is interested in the case, and it generally means there is a 50-50 chance that the Court will hear the case. The Court will consider this case at its February 26 conference.
The excuse that is used to ban or restrict petitioners from gathering signatures at polling places is that they are electioneering. The thing that is so ridiculous about this accusation is that the petitioners are gathering signatures to places something on the ballot for the NEXT election, so therefore by definition they are NOT electioneering (as in influencing the election which is taking place).
Plus, if they (like exit pollsters) are only talking to people *after* they’ve voted — well, that could make it a bit harder to influence the election that’s taking place, too. . . .