In 2014, the New Hampshire legislature made it a crime for anyone to photograph his or her marked ballot and then show the picture to anyone else. On August 11, a U.S. District Court Judge struck down the law on the grounds that there is no evidence that the law is needed to provent bribery of voters. Rideout v Gardiner, 14-cv-489. Here is the 42-page opinion.
The opinion says the state is still free to make it illegal for anyone to pay anyone else to vote a certain way. The lead plaintiff is a state Representative who had opposed the law when it passed. Representative Leon Rideout deliberately took a picture of his own September 2014 primary ballot while he was in the voting booth, and then later he showed the picture to others. He was then threatened with prosecution but he was not actually prosecuted. A few other plaintiffs had also taken pictures of their ballots and posted them to social media without realizing they were breaking the law.
The state tried to argue that a voted ballot is government speech, but the decision says that argument is obviously wrong. The opinion depends partly on the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court opinion Reed v Town of Gilbert, the Arizona case that struck down laws that treated different types of sign differently depending on their content.
Attempts to keep voters from showing anyone their voted ballots are virtually hopeless, because so many states now permit voting by mail. Obviously when someone is filling out a ballot at home and then mailing it back to the elections office, it is impossible to enforce a principle that no one can ever show anyone else their voted ballot. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
All govts in the USA are now spending about a mere $ 20,000 per person — ie. around $ 50,000-60,000 for the *average* smaller family.
Thus — will some zillionaires de facto take over the USA via ballot photos ??? — ie. BRIBES. Stay tuned.
One more quite possible constitutional amendment – esp. in connection with mail ballots.
Reminder – in ancient Greece illegal voting stuff had a DEATH penalty for obvious reasons.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
The government may not be able to stop people from photographing their ballots when they vote at home. But if they post those photos on social media, the government could still be able to prosecute them afterwards for doing so.
But the law didn’t just make it a crime to post the pictures on social media; it made it illegal to show the picture to anyone. And obviously anyone who really was being bribed to vote a certain way would have no incentive to put the picture up on social media, because then it would be easier for prosecutors to catch that person if he or she really was being paid to vote a certain way. If someone were really being bribed a certain way, it would be irrational to show the picture to anyone but the briber.
One of the plaintiffs was so disgusted with the choices on his ballot, he cast a write-in vote for his pet and posted that on social media. He was expressing how he felt. That is speech, just as novels, paintings, political cartoons, and dances are speech.
What’s next ???
— how a person votes when on a Grand Jury or a regular Jury —
aka major obstruction of Justice and bribery.
Is most everything going NUTS due to the SCOTUS robot party hack morons ???
What about photos of such things as current WAR codes and WAR plans and WAR orders ???
Some sort of mere speech / press item ???
VJ Day plus 70 years today.
Due to the arrogant Axis monsters, their EVIL WAR codes were broken as a TOP SECRET / ULTRA matter.
Troubling decision. Would likely require rethinking a few basics, including limitations on electioneering near polling places. I doubt it will survive appeal.
Reminder — a LONG effort to get the SECRET ballot.
Magically going back to PUBLIC BRIBERY ballots ???
— i.e. the highest bidder gets control of the regime ???
See some of the Roman killer emperors — highest bidders who won (with some getting killed later by the regime guards).