[EL] Ballot Selfies, Voter Integrity and New Technology

[Steve Klein]

>
> Why would you think that people who are being coerced or selling their
> votes would necessarily post their ballots on social media? The problem is
> the photography of the ballot itself.


That does not really counter my point - the technology can assist in
exposing coercion or vote-buying whether or not one posts a picture to
social media or is merely required to show the coercer or buyer.

The posters, however, illustrate the increasing popularity of the practice
and its power as a form of political speech. Citizens should not be
censored on the basis of speculation, particularly given Richard Winger’s
points (which I believe you have also referenced in the past).

I’m still unsure where my vote is going
<https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/788933131017609219>, but I’m
particularly excited that, in Virginia with a common-sense AG
<http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_54c016c3-71d5-51e9-9745-974e63d68137.html>,
I can document that I played no part in either major party’s sick joke next
week.

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> Why would you think that people who are being coerced or selling their
> votes would necessarily post their ballots on social media? The problem is
> the photography of the ballot itself.
>
>
>
> *From: *<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of
> Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:40 AM
> *To: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *[EL] Ballot Selfies, Voter Integrity and New Technology
>
>
>
>
> *Viral Video of Son Joking He’s Not Voting for Clinton Prompts Mom to Ask
> for Ballot Selfie to Prove How He Voted
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88304>*
> Posted on October 30, 2016 9:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88304>
>  by
> *Rick Hasen * <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>Yeah, it’s funny.
> <https://twitter.com/xxxjayglo/status/792039225877299200>But it’s not.
> Ballot selfies can facilitate coercion, not just vote buying
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88276>.
>
>
>
> I argued in our briefing in the Western District of Michigan that the same
> new technology that allows for easy ballot selfies also allows citizens to
> now catch much of the subtle coercion that so concerned the Supreme Court
> in *Burson*.
>
>
>
> This video is funny, in part, because it’s an open recording, but most
> states (including Michigan) allow for secret recording with single-party
> consent (that is, you can secretly record your own conversations). Audio
> recording from an iPhone of subtle coercion may not rise to the level of
> overt threats or vote-buy offers to make a solid legal case, but it’s
> certainly a chance for average citizens to protect themselves by going to
> the press or, just maybe, provide some real evidence that ballot selfies
> are just too dangerous to voting integrity.
>
>
>
> But a simple search of social media platforms, even from users in states
> where ballot selfies are illegal, is bound to show a whole lot of ballot
> selfies next week. They will implicate nothing other than electoral
> advocacy and civic pride.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Steve Klein
>
> Attorney*
>
> Pillar of Law Institute
>
> www.pillaroflaw.org
>
>
> **Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
>



-- 
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/20161030/6b8c8ed1/attachment.html>