Pull Lever, Don't Snap Shutter: It May Be Illegal To Post Your Ballot

An anonymous reader writes "Proud voters are already posting their ballots on Instagram but ProPublica's Lois Beckett reports that you may want to check your state laws first since showing your marked ballot to other people is actually illegal in many states."

Comments

Good reason for it to be illegal

[dkleinsc]

If you can prove how you voted, to anybody, you can demonstrate to some interested third party that you voted the way they wanted you to. Which means you could sell your vote, or be coerced into voting a certain way.

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal

[mrjimorg]

Wish I could mod this up. Absolutely right - especially when unions get involved. Or abusive spouses. Or that pastor who drives you to the polls. Just too many ways this can be abused. Having said that, it does make it difficult to audit the system - how can you be sure that the machine isn't switching your vote after you leave? Ideally, people would be able to go back some other time and confirm that the vote they cast was in the system correctly. I think the only way to do this would be to allow you to go to a secure facility where you could confirm, in private, how you voted and insure that at least your vote was correctly accepted

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal

[LateArthurDent]

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.

Looking up online later, absolutely. The proposals for a receipt, at least the ones I've seen, you may be talking about something else, don't allow you to take the receipt home with you.

Basically, you vote in an electronic voting machine, it prints out a receipt that is human readable and you can verify, then you drop that receipt in the ballot box. The voting machine does the vote count, recounts are done with the paper receipts. That is actually the type of electronic voting machine I'd approve of.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal

[Nadaka]

The way you make sure the machine does not switch your vote after you leave is that the machine prints out a prefilled paper ballot for you that is exactly the same as a paper ballot. And this paper ballot can be visually verified and validated normally before it goes into the same pile as all the other ballots to be counted normally.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal

[Hatta]

Basically, you vote in an electronic voting machine, it prints out a receipt that is human readable and you can verify, then you drop that receipt in the ballot box. The voting machine does the vote count, recounts are done with the paper receipts. That is actually the type of electronic voting machine I'd approve of.

With one more stipulation: No Touch Screens. Use real physical buttons next to an LCD display, like we've all used on ATMs for decades now. Touch screens go out of calibration, leading to opportunities for all sorts of shenanigans.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal

[flink]

With one more stipulation: No Touch Screens. Use real physical buttons next to an LCD display, like we've all used on ATMs for decades now. Touch screens go out of calibration, leading to opportunities for all sorts of shenanigans.

Funny thing about those old ATMs with the physical buttons: many times I'd walk into the ATM to find the screen had physically shifted in its housing so those nice physical buttons no longer matched up with the on screen choices. In fact it wasn't uncommon for the buttons to be exactly between the choices. Other times the actual display would be set back and behind such a thick layer of shatter-proof glass that what button lined up with what choice depended on your viewing angle.

The point is that *any* voting machine is going to need proper calibration. A touch screen as an input modality isn't necessarily bad, but you can botch the implementation just like with any other tech.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal

[readin]

One way out of this is for English to become the official and only government interaction language for the US. Another is for all government interaction to be done in some electronic fashion with the screen displaying whatever language the user selects, probably up to and including Klingon.

Making English the official language is a good idea, but making it the "only government interaction language for the US" goes a bit too far. We still want to be able to interact with our government in various languages for purposes like dealing 911 operators, the police, and the fire department. On the other hand, making English the official language would say that a city or county can provide foreign language services if it wants to, it doesn't have to do so and can't be sued for not doing so. Services provided by the government should be required to be available in English, and English should be considered sufficient to say that the government did its job in providing the service, but there should be no bar to a government providing services in additional languages if there is a reason to do so.

Re:Good reason for it to be illegal

[shutdown -p now]

I love how you label me as a "racist twit", given that I'm 1) not an American citizen, and 2) not a native English speaker.

There's nothing racist about asking people to learn the language of the society they are trying to integrate into. And if they're not trying and have no desire to do so, then what the fuck are they doing there?

Oh, and websites are good, but how about debates? And a wealth of other information that's not official propaganda from either candidate?

As it should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

As it should be.

Before people rant, let's make this simple, cut and dry.

If I am allowed by law to prove who I voted for -- then people with guns can coerce me to prove I've voted for their candidate.

This is about electoral integrity, not speech.

Now -- to be blunt, it would be nice to be able to snap a picture of my ballot up until the moment I hit "submit" or "vote" or pull the lever. But never during or after.

Re:1st Amendment

[AdmiralXyz]

No, there is a very good reason for this law: if you can show which way you voted to third parties, then it's possible for you to sell your vote to those third parties. As it stands, it's not possible to "sell votes" (at least, not in the direct sense), because you could just take the money and say you voted a certain way, when you didn't.

(Incidentally, I see a lot of people proposing reformed voting systems that include a hard confirmation that your vote for X was counted. Voting reform is good, but that particular idea is bad, for this exact reason. Cut it out).

If someone tried to defend their right to post a picture of their ballot on First Amendment grounds, I'd be willing to bet that a court would rule that a fair election represents the overriding concern and would still prosecute.

employers like this trend

[a2wflc]

Think of the emails we've been seeing that employers have sent to their workers. I think many of those employers would love to see how everyone votes. If showing your ballot becomes the norm, I'd expect "someone" at the business to start throwing a "we voted" party with a slideshow of everyone's ballot. You may want to keep yours secret, but "everyone does it" so make sure to send your pic to the party organizer to prepare the slideshow. And if you don't care about employers seeing votes, maybe you care about unions, churches, schools, bar owners, or neighborhood thug. Best to not allow proof of votes if we care about keeping them secret.

Not a problem

[Okian Warrior]

Although posting your ballot may be illegal, it's unenforceable as a matter of law.

There's no way to prove that an image is your ballot.

The state has to prove chain of custody. Can they prove that you actually took the image (as opposed to, for example, downloading it off the internet)? Can they prove that you snapped your actual vote (as opposed to taking a picture and then changing the vote)? Can they prove that you didn't snap a picture of someone else's vote?

Can they prove that you didn't photoshop the image?

Even if they can make a good case for chain of custody (a video of you actually casting the vote would take a lot of effort to fake), would the state actually prosecute? The bad publicity for prosecuting this while taking time away from more serious crimes (murder, rape) would be a big disincentive.

There's also the personal freedoms angle. Certainly no one can be forced to prove their vote, but if someone wants to proudly show their vote, could this not be considered a freedom of speech issue?

There may be some grumbling from government about this, and some websites could be asked (without a warrant) to take some pictures down, but that's about all that will happen.

Government is powerless to prevent this, and they know it.

Re:Katy Perry's Dress

[Geoffrey.landis]

I wonder if she will be arrested as she had hers printed on her rubber dress.

If it's not her actual ballot, but just a "here's how to vote" sample ballot, that would be ok.

I agree with the concept that you shouldn't photograph and share your ballot, though. The whole point of a secret ballot is destroyed if it is not secret, and that leads to the possibility of very explicit fraud.

Re:Katy Perry's Dress

[GameboyRMH]

I gotta say, it seems more than a little self-serving for an RIAA-signed artist to promote the Democratic candidate...