I'd be right there with you on this article but for the fact that it (your point) is based entirely upon an assumption (i.e., that workers at the polling place do not uniformly enforce the law because they have allowed others wearing similarly objectionable T-shirts worn by those with more "popular" causes to enter the polling place to vote without asking them to put a sweater or jacket on first)for which you have no supporting evidence. You assume there were Sierra Club members wearing Sierra Club T-shirts or Planned Parenthood promoters wearing Planned Parenthood T-Shirts or Arizona Education Association members wearing a AEA T-shirts who poll workers did not "harrass" by asking them to cover up the writing on their T-shirts. If the point of your story was to suggest that the poll workers unconstitutionally single out those promoting unpopular causes and that discrimination of this type should never occur, shouldn't you have investigated this further and at least asked (and reported the response you received) whether poll workers ever asked AEA T-Shirt wearers to cover their T-shirts when voting on Prop 100? I think it's patently unfair to assume discrimination of some sort took place and accuse others of acting unconstitutionally without at least first doing a thorough investigation to determine if there is any evidence to support your suggestion and accusation of wrong doing. At the very least, I would have expected there to be some information in your article establishing you asked about the existence of such evidence before jumping on your high and mighty and assuming it doesn't exist. Then again, I understand that fair and balanced reporting isn't near as sexy as the assumptions upon which your article is based. I understand your job is to sell papers, not necessarily engage in fair and unbiased reporting of facts. It is what it is. We get it. Too much of it, actually.