[EL] Why the Selfie is a Threat to Democracy”

Tue Aug 18 07:49:52 PDT 2015

The big difference between the two cases is the costs vs. the benefits. 
In the case of a ban on ballot selfies, the cost is minimal. There are 
ample, ample ways to express one's support for a candidate aside from 
the single way (the selfie) which allows verification of how someone 
voted in the polling booth. So the cost of the prohibition is minimal, 
compared to the cost of voter id laws.

Further, I actually think a national voter id law makes sense, as I 
argue in my Voting Wars book, to deal with problems such as double 
voting across states (a relatively real but rare problem), so long as it 
is coupled with a national program to register and pay all the costs 
associated with verifying voters' identities.

On 8/18/2015 7:42 AM, Michael McDonald wrote:
>
> We should apply the same standard to voter id laws as to ballot 
> selfies. What evidence can you provide Rick that there has been vote 
> buying enabled by ballot selfies (not with mail ballots, specifically 
> ballot selfies)? Why criminalize a behavior, forcing law enforcement 
> to expend valuable resources to police it, when there are more 
> pressing matters for them to focus on? It strikes me that existing 
> laws regulating vote buying are sufficient. A candidate stupid enough 
> to use ballot selfies as a way to verify votes will likely find people 
> posting their selfies on social media with the caption “I just made $20!”
>
> ============
>
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
>
> Associate Professor
>
> University of Florida
>
> Department of Political Science
>
> 223 Anderson Hall
>
> P.O. Box 117325
>
> Gainesville, FL 32611
>
> phone:352-273-2371 (office)
>
> e-mail:dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com
>
> web:www.ElectProject.org <http://www.electproject.org/>
>
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:21 AM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/18/15
>
>
>     Why the Selfie is a Threat to Democracy”
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75414>
>
> Posted onAugust 18, 2015 7:20 am 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75414>by*Rick Hasen* 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have writtenthis commentar 
> <http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/17/why-the-selfie-is-a-threat-to-democracy/>y 
> for Reuters Opinion.
>
>     /What could be more patriotic in our narcissistic social-media age
>     than posting a picture of yourself on Facebook with your marked
>     ballot for president? Show off your support for former Secretary
>     of State Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders
>     (D-Vt.) or former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.  Last week, a federal
>     court in New Hampshirestruck down
>     <http://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/new-hampshires-ban-on-ballot-selfies-is-struck-down-as-uncon?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.vsPZMbG18>that
>     state’s ban on ballot selfies as a violation of the First
>     Amendment right of free-speech expression./
>
>     /That might seem like a victory for the American Way. But the
>     judge made a huge mistake because without the ballot-selfie ban,
>     we could see the reemergence of the buying and selling of votes —
>     and even potential coercion from employers, union bosses and others./
>
> The case is more fallout from the Supreme Court’ssurprising 
> blockbuster decision 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/us/politics/courts-free-speech-expansion-has-far-reaching-consequences.html?ref=politics>ofReed 
> v. Town of Gilber 
> <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf>t.  The 
> piece concludes:
>
>     /Barbadoro also said the law was not narrowly tailored, given that
>     nothing would stop someone from posting on Facebook, or elsewhere,
>     information about how he or she voted. What this analysis misses
>     is that a picture of a valid voted ballot, unlike a simple
>     expression of how someone voted, is unique in being able*to
>     prove***how someone voted./
>
>     /Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more narrowly tailored law to
>     prevent vote buying. Tell the world you voted for Trump! Use
>     skywriting. Scream it to the heavens. We just won’t give you the
>     tools to sell your vote or get forced to vote one way or another./
>
>     /The social-media age gives people plenty of tools for political
>     self-expression. New Hampshire’s law is a modest way to make sure
>     that this patriotic expression does not give anyone the tools to
>     corrupt the voting process. Perhaps the judges of the 1//^st U.S.
>     Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court will see the
>     error of Barbadoro’s ways./
>
>   
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150818/43637735/attachment.html>