Picray

Picray v. Sealock

Bad Law
138 F.3d 767·98 Daily Journal DAR 2339·1998 WL 97375·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 4039·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1664
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 9, 1998No. 96-36024California2,425 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Canby, J.

David Picray appeals the dismissal of his several 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising from his arrest for trespass at an Oregon polling station. We affirm, finding that the claims all falter on either the relevant officials’ qualified immunity, the absence of an offending local policy or custom, or a lack of basis in federal law.

BACKGROUND

Oregon election law provides that “[n]o person, within a polling place, shaE wear a poHtical badge, button, or other insignia.” O.R.S. § 260.695(4). The Secretary of State’s Office interprets this section to prohibit buttons, badges, T-shirts, hats or other paraphernaHa which could reasonably be understood to support or oppose a candidate or measure on the baEot.

On election day 1992, David Picray wore two buttons to the polls in North Albany, Benton County, that attacked a citizen’s group backing a voter initiative then on the baEot. Several signs at the polling station indicated that campaign buttons could not be displayed on the premises. Benton County election volunteer Barbara Pyburn asked Pi-cray to remove his buttons. He refused. Pyburn contacted her superior, Benton County election director Dan Burk, who confirmed that no one was to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.