By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The state of Ohio has clarified that slogans affiliated with a political party, candidate, or ballot issue are allowed in polling places, as long as they do not display the name of the party, candidate, or issue. This interpretation has reportedly been steady since Secretary of State Frank LaRose took office, although some county officials had previously believed such implicit endorsements were prohibited. The state advised that voters who display such material and refuse to remove or cover it must still be allowed to vote if they are otherwise eligible. This has raised concerns among some poll workers who worry it could incite violence or conflict.
Read the original article here
The recent decision by the Ohio Secretary of State to allow MAGA hats and ‘Not Going Back’ shirts at polling places made my role as a roster judge considerably more complicated, and frankly, it feels downright chaotic. I’ve watched as the political atmosphere has become increasingly polarized, but this new ruling just invites a level of confrontation that I find troubling. Offering such permission seems almost like a calculated move to stoke tensions among voters. Voting should be a private, unencumbered, and secure experience, but now it’s been cast into the spotlight, and I can only imagine the potential fallout.
The requirement to attend de-escalation training hasn’t paired well with this new directive. Picture this: me, a long-time election judge, sitting through a video meant to prepare us for conflict resolution, only to walk into a situation that might very well incite conflict. I’m left scratching my head, wondering if they’re setting us up for failure, or if there is a grander scheme at play. It feels like an invitation for chaos—and let’s be real, nobody should have to navigate justified anger stemming from political affiliations while trying to perform a civic duty.
Walking into a polling station should feel neutral. It used to be a space where you could remain unaware of the political affiliations of those around you. Yet this ruling opens the floodgates for people to wear their affiliations like badges of honor on a very public battlefield. I resonate with those who hold the belief that our votes are private, and our interactions during the voting process should reflect that ethos. I don’t want to know—or honestly care—who the person in line next to me supports. I’m singularly focused on that ballot in front of me, not the political landscape displayed across the shirts and hats of others.
The idea that allowing people to wear political slogans at the polls is an attempt at fairness feels disingenuous. It’s almost childish in nature, reminiscent of a playground rivalry rather than a mature political process. It strikes me that this is an effort to simplify complex political sentiments into soundbites while ignoring the gravity of what voting represents. I can’t help but worry about the implications for voter intimidation and the safety of election workers. This seems like a deliberate oversight, as if inviting more contentious interactions is somehow beneficial for the integrity of our elections.
I often reflect on the historical precedent set by keeping electioneering out of polling places. It wasn’t just a regulation; it was a safeguard against what we might now consider very real threats to our democratic process. Sure, people who disagree politically may want to express themselves, but I believe there’s a line, a point at which those expressions risk infringing on the rights of others to vote freely and without fear. To me, the logic is simple: let’s behave like adults and keep the theatrics for the political rallies, not the polling stations.
The reality in many places has begun to feel like a slippery slope towards a heightened form of partisanship, and I worry about what that portends for future elections. More than ever, I believe we should make it our priority to foster an environment in which voters can interact peacefully and productively, without the specter of political posturing complicating the process.
The notion that we are now considering whether slogans or symbolic gestures such as MAGA hats and ‘Not Going Back’ shirts could lead to more escalation is bewildering. This isn’t the atmosphere I envisioned when I committed to serve as a judge. It’s infuriating, and in a way, it feels as if the very fabric of our electoral process is being tested. The ramifications of this could be substantial, and I’m afraid we might be witnessing a dangerous precedent—a willingness