SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A federal judge recently ruled that banning photos of ballots was unconstitutional:
The ruling clears the way for New Hampshire voters to post their ballot selfies during the first-in-the-nation presidential primaries early next year.
New Hampshire's ban went into effect September 2014 and made it illegal for anyone to post a photo of a marked ballot and share it on social media. The violation was punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.
[...] Mashable's Juana Summers adds that the judge found "there was no evidence that vote-buying or voter coercion were current problems in New Hampshire."
This seems like an interesting legal question, with good arguments on both sides:
- For the ban: If a photograph of a marked ballot is taken from the voting booth, then the voter can verify their vote with an interested third party, including those that would seek to purchase or coerce their vote.
- Against the ban: Such a photograph is protected free speech, and thus cannot be legally banned.
What do Soylentils think about this?
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:23AM
Huh? Are you trying to demonstrate technological incompetence? Do you seriously think that it makes a difference if you put a stamp on the ballot, or that the anti-union managers of history would even have noticed this irrelevant trivia you're trying to distract us with?
"Oh, no, Mr. Moneybags! The union has decided to mail their ballots in rather than put them in the box by the door! We'll never be able to mark their ballots for them now!"
"Mr. Smith, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times. No smoking opium in the whorehouse during your lunch break! Now get back out there, mark those ballots -- and, before you ask, your pen is behind your ear as always."
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:03AM
He does seem to have a peculiar fixation on vote by mail. I wonder why that is.