ACLU defends arrested Madison voter

Leigh Purdum refused to cover her John McCain T-shirt Nov. 4 at the Brightwood precinct in Madison County. See video
On Dec. 1, warrant in hand, she turned herself in for arrest.

The American Civil Liberties Union believes Purdum is the only person arrested as a result of the Virginia State Board of Elections’ ruling in October that banned political clothing at polling locations.

Now, the ACLU has assigned four lawyers to defend her in court.

“This case should have never been brought,” said Steven Rosenfield, a Charlottesville-based civil rights attorney leading Purdum’s defense team. “At some point, we’re hopeful it will be dismissed.”

Purdum had been scheduled to appear Dec. 16 in Madison County General District Court, but her case has been continued to March 24. By that time, the defense is hopeful that a separate federal case on the constitutionality of the matter will provide legal direction.

Until this point, the controversy has played out primarily in the form of op-ed pieces and court challenges. But now that Purdum’s arrest has come to light, it lends increased relevance to Borak v. Rodrigues, a federal case filed Wednesday in Richmond by the ACLU, Thomas Jefferson Center and Rutherford Institute.

That case, separate from Purdum’s, was filed against the state elections board on behalf of two voters in Fairfax County and Richmond. Those voters wore Obama buttons and stickers to the polls; neither, however, was arrested.

Rosenfield believes Borak v. Rodrigues will find the state board’s policy unconstitutional, which would render Madison County’s case against Purdum moot.

“We’ll wait to see what the outcome is on the federal court’s interpretation of this statute,” Rosenfield said. “If it’s not (constitutional), as the lawsuit contends, Leigh’s case will have to be dismissed.”

The case against Purdum
Purdum is no stranger to political controversy in Madison County.

In May, she earned statewide acclaim from an open government group after winning a bitterly contested Freedom of Information case against her former boss, Sheriff Erik Weaver. That case will be heard on appeal in April.

Purdum, a federal employee who works in Charlottesville, thinks she is being singled out for political revenge.

“If I am the only person in the state” arrested under the political clothing statute, Purdum said, “tell me that doesn’t show that Madison County is holding some kind of grudge.”

But apart from attempting to serve the warrant, Sheriff Weaver denies any allegations that his office was involved.

“We have no dogs in this fight,” he said. “We have nothing to do with this case, nothing at all.”

Tommy Tanner, secretary of the Madison County Electoral Board, said he was only following state law when he took the complaint against Purdum to George Webb, the county’s commonwealth’s attorney.

According to Tanner, poll workers in Brightwood told Purdum that her shirt — which she says featured the lone word “McCain” — would have to be covered in order to vote. When Purdum refused, poll workers allowed her to vote but informed her that a complaint form would be sent to the commonwealth’s attorney.

After consulting with Webb, Tanner said he decided to press the matter and “got the warrant because it was a blatant violation of state law.”

“Our poll workers are very upset that this lady felt like it was in her rights to violate state law,” Tanner said, adding that poll workers took offense to a subsequent letter by Purdum in the Madison Eagle. “It made them look like they were the bad guys.”

Tanner said it is his obligation as chairman of the county’s electoral board to uphold the law and file paperwork to prosecute those who disobey it.

Webb, who did not return a call from the Star-Exponent, will serve as prosecutor. Defense attorney Rosenfield said he asked Webb to drop the case, but Webb refused.

“This statute,” Rosenfield said, “was not designed for Leigh’s kind of situation. The thought that we have a criminal statute in Virginia that dictates what people can and cannot wear in Virginia when exercising their specific duty is nonsensical.”

About the statute
When the Virginia State Board of Elections announced the political clothing ban shortly before the Nov. 4 election, it generated heated response from across the commonwealth.

At issue is the board’s interpretation of Section 24.2-604 of the state code, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in electioneering at polling places.

Many groups, whose ideologies span from liberal to conservative, believe the board’s new policy reaches too far and violates free speech.

In Borak v. Rodrigues, the plaintiffs call the policy “a misguided attempt to (enforce) the commonwealth’s legitimate interest in maintaining safe, orderly, and fair polling places.”

On the days leading up to the election, localities across Virginia reacted differently to the state board’s policy, some with disdain. In Culpeper County, for instance, Commonwealth’s Attorney Gary Close said his office would not prosecute anyone who was charged with voting while wearing political clothing or paraphernalia.

Before the election, Close called the policy “a regulation looking for a problem.”

“Gary Close is exactly right,” Rosenfield said. “We don’t need clothing police in our society. We’re a little too free for that.”

Rob Humphreys can be reached at 825-0771 ext. 128 or .