Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday August 24 2015, @11:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the ballot-selfie-stick-ban dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:28AM (#227399)

    > they have absentee ballots, which can be sent by mail, but that is NOT the same thing,

    You seem really invested in splitting hairs. Its a difference of degree, not kind. The exact same exploit works in either case.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:30AM (#227475)
    And the same frigging exploit works whether people can post selfies of themselves or not.

    So why even bother banning people from posting selfies of themselves voting? Why reduce freedoms for zero real gain? It's clear that no idiot is coercing those selfie idiots to be idiots, they're being idiots of their own free will.

    All you have to do is make it legal to wiretap without consent people who are trying to coerce your vote and make sure that those who do coerce go to jail for a long enough time.

    That way you make bosses etc more nervous about trying such shit.

    In fact the real pros in power just coerce those that continue to make gerrymandering easier. It's only the stupid amateurs who try to _force_ people to vote a certain way.

    As for getting paid to vote, perhaps its unethical but I find it hard to feel much outrage against people who sell their vote willingly if it's their own vote to sell (e.g. they're not voting on behalf of anyone else but themselves, they're not representing other interests but their own). To me they're stupid if they sell their vote for too cheap.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:04AM (#227520)

      Why reduce freedoms for zero real gain?

      Whether there is gain or not, that doesn't affect the constitutionality of banning such pictures. That is, it's still a violation of the first amendment.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:15PM (#227715)

      You are right, it is the photo that is the problem, not the posting of the photo.

      But posting it makes it really easy to prove that they took the photo.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:14PM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:14PM (#227740) Journal

    You seem really invested in splitting hairs. Its a difference of degree, not kind. The exact same exploit works in either case.

    No it doesn't.

    Because states with All Mail ballots will not send ballots out of state except to APO/FPO/DPO (military) addresses.

    Its not 1929 any more. Computerized systems weed out a great deal of out dated information, such as people moving
    out of state, or simply from one town to another. These computerized checks happen in all states, but are especially effective in
    vote by mail states.

    Oregon's Secretary of state says [washingtonmonthly.com]:

    What about fraud? Coercion? Stolen ballots? Other election mischief? After hundreds of millions of ballots cast, the actual incidents in Oregon- and then, only of individual voter fraud — can be counted on two hands.

    They've been voting by mail since 2000.

    Washington's Secretary of state says:
    Contrary to allegations made by opponents to vote-by-mail, there have been no substantiated reports of voter coercion, such as a domineering spouse or a corrupt nursing home employee. It DOESN'T happen.

    Allegations of Fraud
    The most common criticism of voting by mail
    is that it provides greater opportunity for fraud.
    While this makes for interesting headlines, it
    rarely proves to be true. Claims that elections
    conducted through the mail have increased risk
    over elections conducted at polls do not take into
    account the levels of security implemented in
    jurisdictions that vote heavily by mail.

    States that have limited mail voting often lack
    the security measures that ensure that the
    person registered to vote was the person who
    voted the ballot. Because these states lack a
    structured security system to handle volumes of
    mail ballots, journalists are frequently unaware
    of the extensive security measures that are in
    place in states deliberately structured for mail
    voting. Critics often assume that absentee ballots
    are simply accepted and counted, and are
    often unaware of the crucial element that each
    signature is examined against the signature on
    file.

    Following the 2004 General Election and the
    subsequent gubernatorial recounts, both political
    parties spent a combined total of $6.5 million
    contesting the election and attempting to prove
    that fraud
    occurred during the course of the
    election. Despite the numerous problems with the
    election cited by the judge, none were directly
    linked to voting by mail

    .
    Contrary to allegations made by opponents to
    vote-by-mail, there have been no substantiated
    reports of voter coercion, such as a domineering
    spouse or a corrupt nursing home employee.

    Voters always have the option of coming to the
    county elections department to cast their ballots.
    Implementation of the statewide voter registration
    database in 2006 has helped to ensure that only
    those people eligible to vote receive ballots.

    The voter registration database is screened daily for
    duplicate registrations, monthly for deceased
    voters, and quarterly for felons. The screenings
    for duplicate registrations are especially important
    since they contribute to the perception of voting
    fraud and the assumption that people are voting
    multiple ballots. In 2006:
    • 39,814 duplicate voter registrations were
    identified and cancelled accordingly;
    • 40,105 registrations of deceased voters
    were identified and cancelled accordingly;
    • 4,500 registrations of convicted felons
    were identified and cancelled accordingly;
    and
    • 91,954 active and inactive voter
    registrations were cancelled for a variety of
    reasons, including:
     upon the voter’s request;
     the voter moved and failed to
    reregister;
    the voter moved out of state; or
     the voter had been on inactive
    status for more than two federal
    elections, a time period established
    in federal law.

    Conclusion
    Voting by mail increases turnout, simplifies the
    elections process, and promotes an informed
    citizenry. But above all else, the people of
    Washington strongly support it.

    http://www.sos.wa.gov/documentvault/WashingtonStatesVotebyMailExperienceOctober2007-2066.pdf [wa.gov]