Judge Refuses To Block NY No-Selfie Ballot Law Because It Would 'Create Havoc To Not Enforce It'
from the wut? dept
Our long national nightmare that has been this election cycle is nearly over. Election day is approaching and early voting has begun, which means you've probably already seen your social media connections happily and proudly posting about their votes. This is a good thing for democracy, in my opinion, as celebrations of participation can only encourage others to participate as well. Yet not everyone is on board with this social media pride. We had already discussed New Hampshire's law against so-called ballot selfies, in which people post their completed voting ballots to social media. That law was struck down as unconstitutional, because of its restriction on the most important form of speech, political speech.
But, as you may know, New Hampshire isn't the only state to pass such a law -- in fact lots of states have them, including New York. As in other states, New York's is being challenged in federal court at present. Three voters sued in October to get enforcement of the law blocked. The judge in the case, however, has refused to issue such an order, claiming that to do so would sow confusion on election day.
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." "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.
It's an odd bit of reasoning. What Castel is saying is that ordering non-enforcement of this law -- doing nothing, in other words -- would create more havoc than actually tasking law enforcement with enforcing it. How is that remotely possible? Doing nothing cannot possibly create more problems than doing something. Doing nothing is doing nothing, after all. What havoc could come from local law enforcement sitting idly by as people proudly share that they voted on social media?
When one takes into account that this is a matter of free political speech, so too does Castel's suggestion that the public benefit outweigh's those of the plaintiff's seem odd. The public is the one that would benefit from not enforcing a law that has had a similar version of it already declared unconstitutional in another state. Other states have had the courts all over the map on this question, with California also seeing a refusal to stop enforcement of its ballot selfie law, while states like Indiana and New Hampshire have had those laws struck down.
It seems this may be headed for the Supreme Court, where we'll hopefully have a full roster of justices ready to make a ruling on selfies at the ballot box.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ballot selfies, election, first amendment, free speech, new york
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Blinders firmly in-place along with rose colored galsses
The only excuse I have heard about ballot selfies that makes any sense is that they might be used to collect payment for having voted a certain way. There were ways to do that prior to selfies, so why the stall? Can he really not tell a bald faced 1rst Amendment violation on first read? He should turn in both his judge membership card, and his decoder ring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blinders firmly in-place along with rose colored galsses
I yet to find more than literally a handful of people that actually support the constitution.
99% of Americans support ignoring it when it suits their desires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blinders firmly in-place along with rose colored galsses
You might have better luck asking immigrants about it and finding support for it there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blinders firmly in-place along with rose colored galsses
This law hasn't yet been declared illegal in NY. This was for a preliminary (i.e. before the case has been heard) injunction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Government Meddling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Government Meddling
Except it's not confirmation of jack shit, because you can fill out your ballot, take a photo of it, and then tell the poll workers that you filled it out incorrectly and need a new one. That ballot will be discarded and you can get a new one and vote however you want.
The idea that ballot photos are being used as proof in some kind of blackmail/bribery vote-rigging scheme is asinine. There is zero evidence that this is happening, and if anybody tried to do it it would be trivial to circumvent.
Ballot photos aren't election tampering, they're self-expression.
You're free to tell people who you voted for. You're free to show people who you voted for. You're also free to keep it confidential.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Government Meddling
Nice job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Government Meddling
Guess you've never heard of a selfie video, huh?
> That ballot will be discarded and you can get a new one and vote however you want.
Not after you've videoed yourself depositing it.
> There is zero evidence that this is happening,
Then let's keep it that way, shall we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
Which is, perhaps, a good argument for banning videos of people depositing their ballots. So good job, you made a fair point in a completely different debate from the one we're actually having.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
I'm not sure which debate you're referring to. The article was about "selfies", which includes self-taken videos of one's own self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
The article is about a law that bans people from taking photographs of their ballots. You are saying that this is reasonable. Your justification for it being reasonable is that people could take videos. (You have produced no evidence that this has ever happened.)
So, let me spell it out for you:
"Someone could take a video of themselves filling out and then submitting a ballot" is a stupid-ass justification for banning anything but people taking a video of themselves filling out and then submitting a ballot.
We are currently talking about a law that bans things other than people taking videos of themselves filling out and then submitting ballots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
I.e., an argument defending a law which is narrower than the law we're actually talking about is not an argument which defends the law we're actually talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
Any citations for the idea that it is also, in at least some cases, understood to include things that are not photographs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Government Meddling
Isn't there a record made of these discarded ballots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poll Worker Training
Issue an injunction today, not all of those workers will hear or understand the message. Then you have a situation on Tuesday where some workers are allowing selfies and others are not. That is the confusion the judge is talking about.
Writing an injunction takes the stroke of a pen; causing it to be equally enforced takes careful planning and a lot of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just run-of-the-mill kicking of the can
The judge has no discernible argument with the constitution. This is not a constitutional issue for this judge. It's an issue of disturbance of judicial naps. With this non-result, the status quo is preserved and nobody cares. Hands washed, back to sleep.
By the time there's an appeal, the question will be moot for 2016. If someone actually gets arrested for it in the meantime, they can be the plaintiff and own the problem on a different lawsuit and the judge gets to dodge entirely.
It's a legal system, not a justice system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just run-of-the-mill kicking of the can
And as to nightmare, sure is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cAN i ASK??
For your Proof, and for later examination and comparison??
Its interesting that there is NO validation process to PROVE to a Civilian...THAT the vote went this way or That..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cAN i ASK??
Here is Chicago where on audit the vote totals were proven to be wrong. The vote was literally flipped from one candidate to the other. The paper receipts that the voter can see and verify said that Bernie Sanders won the primary but the ballots counted said that Hillary had won. Rather than viewing that as a problem they moved past it as quickly as possible and ratified the Hillary Win result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNTauWPkTc&t=1m01s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This conclusion is common sense really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect example
See what I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perfect example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since buying a vote is definitely illegal…
prosecute and convict the buyer of votes, it would be most
interesting to see who is promoting these anti-selfie laws. ;]
Also, nothing in those laws forbid simply taking a photo of
your own ballot without your face in the shot; so you can
still keep proof (but don't forget to disable the flash). ;]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something smells fishy here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something smells fishy here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ballot Selfies Show Who is on the Right Side
My friends and I are going around the office the morning of the election. Anyone who hasn't posted their selfie showing that they voted the right way obviously voted the wrong way deserves retribution. Nothing directly is going to happen, but it might be interesting to note the correlation between our list and who gets their expense reports audited. Or maybe get anonymously accused of sexual harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ballot Selfies Show Who is on the Right Side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ballot Selfies Show Who is on the Right Side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret ballots are for counterrevolutionary scum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encouraging people to vote?!
Be sure to keep two eyes on those organizations that are out there trying to register folks. Be sure to purge the registration rolls a couple months before the election of possible felons & dead people. The name is the same or close enough, purge them!
Make sure that people in certain precincts wait hours to vote because it's not our fault too many people showed up to vote.
Oh & they GOTTA HAVE I.D. because there might be busloads of people moving from place to place to vote multiple times (but not one of them will rat them out). Never mind that replacing lost/stolen I.D. can be next to impossible now days without money & transportation.
Voter suppression is live & happening. They are doubling down on the Florida 2000 model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And rightfully so, considering the fact that the popular vote and the electoral vote can go (and has gone in the past) in two entirely different directions, and yet the electoral vote will stand. Basically, that means 538 people determine the outcome - not you or anything you do. You and your votes do not in any way shape their votes even though their votes are "supposed" to mirror yours. So while the default American Idiot continues to deceive themselves and those around them that what they do actually matters, candidates like Shillary are busy either blackmailing or paying off a very small group of people who should have never been given power in the first place. The ONLY thing you can do that would actually matter is to 1) educate those who don't know about this about it (you would be surprised how many people don't know such a basic fact), and 2) see to it that the electoral collage is done away with at any cost.
BTW, it doesn't matter if a "faithless elector" is punished by law if the damage they cause with a faithless vote continues to stand (as it currently does).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It...doesn't sound like you understand how the electoral college works. They can't just vote however they want; they have to vote the way the majority of voters in their state did. (Or district, in the case of Nebraska and Maine. And DC, of course.)
I support abolishing the electoral college and going with the popular vote, or at the very least making it proportional instead of all-or-nothing (going to point to Nebraska and Maine again here). But you can't effectively advocate for something without understanding it. Do some research.
Also, if you're over the age of twelve and not a writer for Mad Magazine, referring to politicians by cutesy parody names makes you look like a giant baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's what the AC is saying, though, the electors aren't required to cast their ballots the way their states (or districts) voted. Most (if not all) states have laws that say that they will be punished if they don't but, that punishment happens after the fact.
For example, here is a link to an article about a Democratic elector who doesn't want to vote for Clinton, and another who is considering abstaining, even if she wins Washington State. Since the electors were chosen at the convention along with the candidate, there would have to be another election (before mid-December when the electors vote) to pick new ones to get rid of unfaithful electors. Our system is very broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and from the article you just linked:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've already given my opinions on the electoral college; it needs reform or abolition, but there are much better reasons than the (very) occasional rogue elector.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Awww, widdle Thaddy is upset.
Shillary Shillary Shillary ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is the common belief, but that is not the reality. The "penalty" is not severe enough to matter. Furthermore, said penalties do not undo faithless votes. The damage stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And yet it's mattered enough that faithless votes have never swung a single election.
What damage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What havoc could come from local law enforcement sitting idly by as people proudly share that they voted on social media?
You seem to be willfully ignoring the distinction between someone proclaiming that they they voted and trying to prove who they voted for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because the distinction is meaningless.
Ballot photos are useless as definitive proof of how a person voted (because, as I noted elsewhere, it's trivially easy to take the photo and go tell the poll worker that your ballot is spoiled and you need to throw it out and get a new one). In all practical terms, they're exactly the same as saying who you voted for.
A ban on ballot photos is pointless. It suppresses free speech, and the justification for it is to prevent electoral tampering that (1) is not happening and (2) could not actually happen. Even if balancing tests were a justifiable way of limiting free speech (they're not), there's no justification here; it's a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]