Slashdot Mirror
Judge Refuses To Block New York 'Ballot Selfie' Law (reuters.com)
Last week, we wrote about a federal lawsuit that is challenging a New York state law that makes it a misdemeanor to show a marked election ballot to others. Today, we learn that a federal judge has refused to block enforcement of the law. Reuters reports: U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan said it would "wreak havoc on election-day logistics" to issue a preliminary injunction against the law, which prohibits the display of "ballot selfies." Three voters sued on Oct. 26 to block enforcement of the law, saying that sharing ballot selfies was a form of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. But the judge said that because of the imminence of next Tuesday's election, the voters needed to show a "clear or substantial likelihood" that their lawsuit would succeed before he could issue an injunction, and that they had not done so. "The public's interest in orderly elections outweighs the plaintiffs' interest in taking and posting ballot selfies," though they remained free to express their political message through "other powerful means," Castel wrote. Leo Glickman, a lawyer for the voters, said in an interview his clients were disappointed by the ruling and do not plan to appeal it, but will keep pressing their case ahead of the 2017 election cycle. "People should be able to express themselves freely by photographing their marked ballots and putting them on social media feeds," he said, adding that state legislators have expressed interest in having the law repealed.
If we allow this, we open things up so that people can be pressured to vote one way or another. People's votes are their own, they shouldn't have to answer to their bosses or anyone else about who they vote for.
One of the most important aspects of our voting process is preventing coercion. This is done by making your vote as anonymous as possible. Imagine your boss comes up to you and demands that you vote a certain way or you will lose your job, and tells you to take a ballot selfie to prove it. If a ballot selfie is illegal, then no one can force you to vote that way. While I respect the first amendment argument, protecting voting rights is the more important concern here.
If I'm elected I'll give a snickers bar to everyone who can show they voted for me. Look, me and all my employees voted for you, can I have that trash collection contract?
Reposting at the top level since nearly every other comment is getting this wrong...
Most (all?) jurisdictions allow a voter to request a replacement ballot, in the event of him making an error on the ballot. It would be trivial to take a ballot selfie with one ballot, request a replacement ballot, and vote differently.
This makes ballot selfies ineffective for vote-buying efforts.
The 1st Circuit Court court recognized that the NH law was unconstitutional because it bans protected political speech. NH's US Senator Ayotte is even planning to post her own ballot selfie, in violation of the NH law to prove the point.
NY is in the 2nd Circuit, so they will need their own decision until SCOTUS upholds the 1st Circuit decision.
Regardless, these bans aren't about vote buying - that won't work - they're about preventing people from expressing their political views on social media. Such postings have more benefit for insurgent candidates than establishment candidates, so the establishment is firmly against such efforts.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Boss: it would be in the best interest of your employment to post a selfie of you voting for candidate A.
the difference being you can say you voted for whoever all you want but no one will ever really know if you did. This is important beyond vote buying, i'd be more worried about vote coercion. Sure you can ask for a replacement ballot after taking the shot but opening the door to this kind of pressure is exactly the kind of thing secret ballots are intended to protect against. Fear could prevent people from even thinking of asking for a replacement.
What would you be happy with receiving as compensation for you vote?
"This is a nice job you've got here. Would be a shame if I had to.. fire you."
Do you think before you post, or do you just copy lines from the Democratic Party phrase book?
There is no possible way that forbidding a person from photographing his ballot prevents him from voting.
It's no surprise that you support the anti-freedom position of mandatory voting; it fits quite well with your other leftist views.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It's a lot more difficult to photograph something and alter it later in an undetectable manner than it is to just photograph something. People who allow their vote to be bought are not all that likely to be skilled at making fakes.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So you want to amend the first-amendment eh? Good luck with that.
Because that's the only way mandatory voting would be possible in this country, as such a requirement would constitute government compelled speech, something the first amendment and multiple SCOTUS rulings tend to say no to.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
and just make it a felony to compel someone to reveal their vote. If anyone tries to do it enough times to swing an election it'll be pretty damn obvious when they do and we lock 'em up for 5-10 years for interfering with an election.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So under your version of compulsory voting
I love how you talk about it as if its this theoretical system with all sorts of trivial flaws that no one has ever thought about, as opposed to the actual voting system in a number of countries and regions including, for example Australia.
It's a real thing. It doesn't cause the world to fall over. It's called compulsory voting whether you like it or not despite the non-requirement to cast a valid vote. You're not compelling speech, you're compelling voting. It's not speech because no one knows what you said and you don't have to say anything. But you still have to turn up. Like the OP said, do you object to dury duty because you're compelled to speak and render a verdict?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The laws were created to prevent vote buying and intimidation. If you had to prove to someone how you voted, this would be one way to do so. Making it illegal is the only logical way to prevent that.
Just another day in Paradise
Australian here - compulsory voting works quite well - it's not really compulsory voting, more compulsory attendance; you have to show up but the ballot is secret, so you can just write swear words on it and draw rude pictures if you want - and some do.
But it has a huge effect on the political discourse - because parties don't need to 'get the vote out', politics becomes largely a squabble over the middle ground, and extremists on either side don't tend to do so well. Our politicians are usually pretty boring compared to overseas. Given all the other things we have to do as part of society, showing up every few years to vote seems a fairly small price to pay to keep democratic government ticking over.
Not sure how it would play elsewhere, but it works well for us... as does the whole preferential voting system; you can put your least disliked major party second last, and vote for other people first without 'wasting' your vote.
Anyway, back on topic: the selfie thing is a problem, as it breaks the whole secret ballot shtick. I can see the free speech argument, but there's a reason for secret ballots; without them you can get intimidation, coercion, people selling votes etc... sometimes I think we forget that these things were hard fought for a long time ago, and they shouldn't be given up without a lot of careful thought...
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird.