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

[Steve Klein]

I'm concerned with outlawing something that's quite prevalent and, as Dr.
McDonald notes, shows little sign of corrupting the process. Quite the
contrary, actually.

People - particularly young people - post ballot pictures all the time.
It's not only an announcement of support for particular candidates, it's an
announcement of support for voting in general. Particularly among young
people (again), voter turnout is a riddle that political experts have been
trying to solve for some time. Making a few examples of ballot selfie
violators (who would probably disagree with Rick that "the cost is
minimal") does not strike me as the answer to said riddle.

In 2012, on social media I asked friends back in Michigan to write in a
friend for Michigan State Board of Trustees. This friend was not actually
running for the position. Later that day another friend excitedly posted a
picture of this written-in portion on the ballot. It was funny, but
probably only if you knew everyone in the conversation. Perhaps it was
illegal under Michigan law - I didn't look it up then and will not now.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Michael McDonald <
dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com> 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 on August 18, 2015 7:20 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75414> by
>  *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this 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 Hampshire struck 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’s surprising blockbuster
> decision
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/us/politics/courts-free-speech-expansion-has-far-reaching-consequences.html?ref=politics>
>  of Reed 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
>



-- 
Steve Klein
Attorney*
Pillar of Law Institute
www.pillaroflaw.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150818/50452173/attachment.html>