Ballot selfie

Last updated
Example of a ballot selfie from the 2016 United States elections marked for Hillary Clinton Absentee ballot selfie (30167733963).jpg
Example of a ballot selfie from the 2016 United States elections marked for Hillary Clinton

A ballot selfie is a type of selfie that is intended to depict the photographer's completed ballot in an election, as a way of showing how the photographer cast their vote. Ballot selfies have risen in prominence alongside the increasing availability of smartphone digital cameras and the use of social media in the 21st century. They have also generated controversy as potential violations of laws enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to curtail vote buying, particularly in the United States, though some U.S. courts have rejected restrictions on ballot selfies as inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.

Contents

Voters typically take and share ballot selfies to encourage others to vote, to demonstrate their civic involvement, and to express their choice of candidate. [1] The selfie is often taken in or near a voting booth and the ballot paper is often marked. Others do not take pictures of themselves in the voting booth, but photograph their ballots (including absentee ballots) or the voting machines, either before or after filling them out.

Issues

Several concerns have arisen over ballot selfies, typically focused on issues of ballot secrecy, voter fraud, and voter intimidation. These have led to laws prohibiting or restricting ballot selfies in some places, or the application or revision of existing laws to cover the practice, although enforcement has not been widespread in U.S. jurisdictions. [2] Some authorities have indicated that prosecution would be unlikely unless there was some indication that the photograph was associated with voter fraud or intimidation or a vote-buying scheme. [3]

Legality

"No photography" sign to prevent ballot selfie during the 2024 Indonesian general election Election Day of 2024 Indonesian general elections (ban signs).jpg
" No photography " sign to prevent ballot selfie during the 2024 Indonesian general election

Laws regarding ballot selfies vary by country and jurisdiction, often with laws varying by jurisdiction even within a country.

Brazil

Brazil's election laws ensure the secrecy of the vote; therefore, taking any photos of the voting machine (or, for that matter, using any electronic device while voting) is a crime subject to prison and a fine of up to R$15 thousand. [4]

Canada

Elections Canada has encouraged voters to take selfies outside polling stations [5] but cautioned against photos of marked ballots, [6] as the Canada Elections Act makes it illegal to "show [a] ballot, when marked". [7]

Germany

In federal elections for the Bundestag, taking a ballot selfie in the voting booth was prohibited in 2017 to preserve ballot secrecy and make vote buying and voter intimidation more difficult. If the voting commission notices a voter taking a ballot selfie, the ballot paper is not accepted. The voter will then be given a new ballot paper on request after destroying the old one. [8] [9]

Republic of Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland, laws regarding the secret ballot are strict: one government website warns that "if you take selfies or post pictures online that reveal who you, or someone else, voted for, you could be prosecuted." [10] The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications warns that "taking photographs and the sharing of any photograph of a ballot paper marked at an election or a referendum could have the potential to compromise the integrity and secrecy of a ballot and may constitute an offence." [11] Therefore, one could void one's vote, and/or receive a fine. [12] [13] [14]

The Netherlands

Ballot selfies are called stemfies in Dutch, literally "votefies". A platform for the protection of the rights of civilians sued the Dutch government in 2014 when minister of the interior and kingdom relations Ronald Plasterk said "I won't encourage anyone to take a ballot selfie, but it is allowed". The judge ruled that there is no law regarding ballot selfies and that it would not be up to the judge to say if it was wise of the minister to make statements the way he did. [15]

United States

In the United States, there is no federal law regarding ballot selfies, leaving the matter to the individual states. [16] Some U.S. states prohibit ballot selfies, imposing fines or jail terms for violations, while other states have no prohibition. [17] In some states, laws prohibit photography at a polling place but do not restrict photographs of absentee ballots. [1]

The American Civil Liberties Union and others have questioned the constitutionality of prohibiting ballot selfies, arguing that they violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. [17] [18] [19] Others, such as election-law expert Richard L. Hasen, consider such statutes to be "narrowly tailored ... to prevent vote buying" and thus constitutional, and argue that "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." [20] Supporters of ballot selfies, by contrast, argue that the taking and sharing of such photos is positive for democracy; for example, law professor Paul Bender has suggested that selfies might increase voter turnout. [21]

In Tennessee, entertainer Justin Timberlake came under fire for a ballot selfie he took, though the state did not take legal action. [22]

Constitutional challenges against bans

Indiana's ban was enjoined on October 19, 2015 by a preliminary injunction by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. [23]

New Hampshire's ban on ballot selfies was ruled facially unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in September 2016 in the case Rideout v. Gardner. [24] [25] The case was brought by the ACLU, with the support of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Snapchat, which were among the groups filing amicus briefs in support of the challenge. [16] [26] The court held that the statute's stated justification, to prevent vote-buying or voter coercion, was not sufficient to sustain the restriction on speech, because "digital photography, the Internet, and social media are not unknown quantities -- they have been ubiquitous for several election cycles, without being shown to have the effect of furthering vote buying or voter intimidation." [26] The court thus determined that New Hampshire's law "is facially unconstitutional even applying only intermediate scrutiny" due to the "substantial mismatch between New Hampshire's objectives and the ballot-selfie prohibition." [26] The state sought review by the Supreme Court, but in April 2017 the Court refused to hear the case, leaving the First Circuit's decision intact. [27]

Michigan's ban was enjoined by a preliminary injunction in late October 2016 by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, but that injunction was stayed in early November 2016 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which in a 2-1 decision allowed the ban to remain in place. [28] On May 8, 2019 the Michigan Secretary of State settled the case. Michigan now allows for taking pictures of your ballot inside the voting booth, but not pictures of yourself. [29]

New York's ban on photographing and displaying marked ballots, first enacted in 1890, was upheld in a September 2017 decision in the case Silberberg v. Board of Elections by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Applying strict scrutiny, the court held that the state had a compelling interest in preventing vote buying and voter coercion and that the law was narrowly tailored to meet this interest. [30] [31]

Laws by state

Most state laws making it a crime to photograph marked ballots were enacted as reform efforts in the early 20th century, as part of a broader campaign that saw the introduction of the secret ballot and the enactment of "other laws intended to prevent voter corruption and intimidation." [25] Many such Progressive Era laws remain in force today. [25] The "outright buying of votes has receded as a significant issue" although there are some occasional prosecutions. [25]

Jurisdictions that currently prohibit ballot selfies are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin. Illinois's laws are the strictest of all. While most states with anti-ballot selfie laws make the offense a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, in Illinois, taking a ballot selfie is a felony punishable by 1–3 years in prison. [32] [33]

Jurisdictions that currently allow ballot selfies or do not enforce laws against them are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. [32] [33] [34] [35]

Jurisdictions where the law is currently unclear are Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. [32] [33]

South Africa

South Africa's Independent Electoral Commission takes a hardline approach toward marked ballot selfies. [36]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> US federal legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in voting

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. The National Archives and Records Administration stated: "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War".

Electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election manipulation, voter fraud, or vote rigging, involves illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of a favored candidate, depressing the vote share of rival candidates, or both. It differs from but often goes hand-in-hand with voter suppression. What exactly constitutes electoral fraud varies from country to country, though the goal is often election subversion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secret ballot</span> Anonymous voting method

The secret ballot, also known as the Australian ballot, is a voting method in which a voter's identity in an election or a referendum is anonymous. This forestalls attempts to influence the voter by intimidation, blackmailing, and potential vote buying. This system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy.

A write-in candidate is a candidate whose name does not appear on the ballot but seeks election by asking voters to cast a vote for the candidate by physically writing in the person's name on the ballot. Depending on electoral law it may be possible to win an election by winning a sufficient number of such write-in votes, which count equally as if the person were formally listed on the ballot.

Election law is a branch of public law that relates to the democratic processes, election of representatives and office holders, and referendums, through the regulation of the electoral system, voting rights, ballot access, election management bodies, election campaign, the division of the territory into electoral zones, the procedures for the registration of voters and candidacies, its financing and propaganda, voting, counting of votes, scrutiny, electoral disputes, electoral observation and all contentious matters derived from them. It is a discipline falling at the juncture of constitutional law and political science, and involves "the politics of law and the law of politics".

Voter caging involves challenging the registration status of voters and calling into question the legality of allowing them to vote. Usually it involves sending mail directly to registered voters and compiling a list from mail returned undelivered. Undeliverable mail is seen as proof that the person no longer resides at the address on their voter registration. The resultant list is then used by election officials to purge names from the voter registration rolls or to challenge voters' eligibility to vote on the grounds that the voters no longer reside at their registered addresses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire is the fundamental law of the State of New Hampshire, with which all statute laws must comply. The constitution became effective June 2, 1784, when it replaced the state's constitution of 1776.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spoilt vote</span> Ballot that is invalid and not counted

In voting, a ballot is considered spoilt, spoiled, void, null, informal, invalid or stray if a law declares or an election authority determines that it is invalid and thus not included in the vote count. This may occur accidentally or deliberately. The total number of spoilt votes in a United States election has been called the residual vote. In Australia, such votes are generally referred to as informal votes, and in Canada they are referred to as rejected votes.

Rule 49-O was a rule in The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 of India, which governs elections in the country. It described the procedure to be followed when a valid voter decides not to cast his vote, and decides to record this fact. The rule was declared by the Supreme Court in September 2013 to be incompatible with the constitution and the Election Commission of India announced that the option under this rule would not be available any more. The apparent purpose of this section was to maintain a proper record in order to prevent the election fraud or the misuse of votes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Center for Voting Rights</span> American non-profit organisation

The American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) was a non-profit organization founded by Mark F. "Thor" Hearne that operated from March 2005 to May 2007 and pushed for laws to reduce voter intimidation and voter fraud, and supported requiring photo ID for voters.

Miller v. Treadwell, also known as Miller v. Campbell, is a series of three lawsuits filed by U.S. Senate candidate, Joe Miller, in both federal and Alaska state courts, that dispute vote-counting methods and other procedures conducted by the Alaska Division of Elections relating to the November 2, 2010 general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Selfie</span> Photographic self-portrait

A selfie is a self-portrait photograph or a short video, typically taken with an electronic camera or smartphone. The camera would be usually held at arm's length or supported by a selfie stick instead of being controlled with a self-timer or remote. The concept of shooting oneself while viewing their own image in the camera's LCD monitor is also known as self-recording.

Voter suppression in the United States consists of various legal and illegal efforts to prevent eligible citizens from exercising their right to vote. Such voter suppression efforts vary by state, local government, precinct, and election. Voter suppression has historically been used for racial, economic, gender, age and disability discrimination. After the American Civil War, all African-American men were granted voting rights, but poll taxes or language tests were used to limit and suppress the ability to register or cast a ballot. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 improved voting access significantly. Since the beginning of voter suppression efforts, proponents of these laws have cited concerns over electoral integrity as a justification for various restrictions and requirements, while opponents argue that these constitute bad faith given the lack of voter fraud evidence in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Monkey selfie copyright dispute</span> Copyright dispute involving Celebes crested macaques

Between 2011 and 2018, a series of disputes took place about the copyright status of selfies taken by Celebes crested macaques using equipment belonging to the British wildlife photographer David J. Slater. The disputes involved Wikimedia Commons and the blog Techdirt, which have hosted the images following their publication in newspapers in July 2011 over Slater's objections that he holds the copyright, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who have argued that the copyright should be assigned to the macaque.

Voter impersonation, also sometimes called in-person voter fraud, is a form of electoral fraud in which a person who is eligible to vote in an election votes more than once, or a person who is not eligible to vote does so by voting under the name of an eligible voter. In the United States, voter ID laws have been enacted in a number of states by Republican legislatures and governors since 2010 with the purported aim of preventing voter impersonation. Existing research and evidence shows that voter impersonation is extremely rare. Between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 documented instances of voter impersonation. There is no evidence that it has changed the result of any election. In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.00006 percent" of individual votes nationally, and, in one state, "0.000004 percent — about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning in the United States."

An Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals, more commonly known as Question 3, was the third initiative on the 2016 Massachusetts ballot. The measure requires Massachusetts farmers to give chickens, pigs, and calves enough room to turn around, stand up, lie down, and fully extend their limbs. It also prohibits the sale of eggs or meat from animals raised in conditions that did not meet these standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity</span> Presidential commission created by President Donald Trump in 2017

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, also called the Voter Fraud Commission, was a Presidential Commission established by Donald Trump that ran from May 11, 2017, to January 3, 2018. The Trump administration said the commission would review claims of voter fraud, improper registration, and voter suppression. The establishment of the commission followed Trump's false claim that millions of illegal immigrants had voted in the 2016 presidential election, costing him the popular vote. Vice President Mike Pence was chosen as chair of the commission and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach was its vice chair and day-to-day administrator.

Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia of 26 October 2021, is the European Court of Human Rights judgment in which the court held that voters' rights were violated when they had no legal right to ask for accessible polling places in advance to achieve accessibility before the election day. The ruling is also significant because the court for the first time extended its jurisdiction to referendums.

Election subversion can involve a range of measures to change the outcome of a vote, including voter suppression, election denial, disinformation, intimidation and other legal or illegal attempts to not count or disqualify certain votes.

References

  1. 1 2 Stern, Mark Joseph (September 23, 2016). "Bring on the Ballot Selfies!". Slate . Retrieved November 6, 2016.
  2. ↑ Mathews, Zoe (2014-12-12). "Is A Ban On 'Ballot Selfies' Overkill?". NPR . Retrieved 2020-10-13.
  3. ↑ Dissell, Rachel (October 19, 2016). "Sharing photos of your ballot illegal in Ohio, but officials not likely to prosecute over selfies". The Plain Dealer.
  4. ↑ "Quem tirar selfie na urna eletrônica pode parar na cadeia - Tecnoblog". 2 October 2014.
  5. ↑ "Elections Canada on Twitter".
  6. ↑ "Don't get any ideas from the U.S., 'ballot selfies' aren't allowed in Canada, election officials say".
  7. ↑ Branch, Legislative Services (29 June 2021). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Canada Elections Act".
  8. ↑ Teresa Dapp (2017-04-01). "Wahl-Selfies sind jetzt verboten: Das Kreuzchen ist Privatsache".
  9. ↑ "§ 56 BWO - Einzelnorm". www.gesetze-im-internet.de.
  10. ↑ "Voting in a general election". www.citizensinformation.ie.
  11. ↑ Brophy, Daragh. "Selfies in the polling booth are a bad idea, says Department". TheJournal.ie.
  12. ↑ Kelly, Fiach. "Q&A how to vote: No selfies, and leave the badge at home". The Irish Times.
  13. ↑ Barry, Aoife. "No selfies or badges: What you need to know before you vote today". TheJournal.ie.
  14. ↑ "Voters cast their ballots for Irish election - but warned no selfies in polling booth". The Irish News. February 26, 2016.
  15. ↑ ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:5657
  16. 1 2 Daniel Victor (April 27, 2017). "Selfies in the Voting Booth? Snapchat Fights for the Right". New York Times.
  17. 1 2 "Where can you take a selfie with your ballot?". CBS News . Associated Press. October 24, 2016.
  18. ↑ "ACLU of Indiana Challenges State Law Prohibiting Ballot "Selfies"" (Press release). August 27, 2015.
  19. ↑ Gilles Bissonnette (August 12, 2015). "Judge Says New Hampshire's Ban on 'Ballot Selfies' Violates the First Amendment and 'Common Sense'". Speak Freely. American Civil Liberties Union.
  20. ↑ Richard L. Hasen (August 18, 2015). "Why the selfie is a threat to democracy". Reuters. Archived from the original on August 18, 2015.
  21. ↑ Macaela J. Bennett (August 11, 2016). "Could ballot selfies help save democracy?". Arizona Republic.
  22. ↑ Andrea Mandell (October 25, 2016). "Justin Timberlake's voting selfie may have broken the law". USA Today.
  23. ↑ "Judge bars Indiana from enforcing 'ballot selfie law'". Associated Press/Indianapolis Star. October 20, 2015.
  24. ↑ David Kravets (September 28, 2016). "New Hampshire law barring ballot selfies is unconstitutional, court rules". Ars Technica.
  25. 1 2 3 4 Recent Case: Rideout v. Gardner: First Circuit Strikes Down State Ban on Ballot Selfies, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1728 (2017).
  26. 1 2 3 "'Ballot selfies' get federal court blessing". CNN. September 28, 2016.
  27. ↑ Josh Gerstein (April 3, 2017). "SCOTUS won't hear case on ballot selfies". Politico.
  28. ↑ Brad Devereaux (November 4, 2016). "Federal court says no to Michigan ballot selfies again, days before election". MLive.com.
  29. ↑ "Michigan secretary of state settles 'ballot selfie' case".
  30. ↑ Rick Hasen (September 28, 2017). "Federal District Court Upholds NY Ballot Selfie Law Against First Amendment Challenge, Applying Strict Scrutiny". Election Law Blog.
  31. ↑ "New York voters have no 1st Amendment right to snap ballot-booth selfies". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  32. 1 2 3 Abby Ohlheiser (October 26, 2017). "Analysis: Yes, your ballot selfie still might be illegal. Sorry". Washington Post.
  33. 1 2 3 "17 states where ballot selfies are illegal". Associated Press. January 4, 2017.
  34. ↑ "Colo. Gov. Signs 'ballot selfie' bill". 17 March 2017.
  35. ↑ "Taking A 'Ballot Selfie' at the Voting Booth is Now Legal in California". 18 May 2018.
  36. ↑ Noni Mokati (2014-05-03). "Marked ballot selfie could get you jailed" . Retrieved 2016-10-24.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.