I'd like to show you my ballot where I voted Green Party

But I can't. You'll have to take my word for it on faith. You see, taking a photograph of your ballot is illegal in the State of New York.

Under NY Election Law 17-130(10), the state has interpreted a law that prohibits showing one's "ballot after it is prepared for voting, to any person so as to reveal the contents, or solicits a voter to show the same" to include taking a selfie of one's ballot. Violations of this law are considered criminal misdemeanors with a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison.

NY Election Law 17-130(10) was first enacted 126 years ago in the late 19th century, which is why it makes no reference to photographs, or digital imaging using 21st century mobile devices such as cell phones with cameras. It was known as part of the "Australian ballot reforms" because of the common practice in Australia to require employees to show their ballots to their employer before casting their vote. In other words, it is an outdated law, not originally intended to cover the ubiquitous present day use of electronic devices to photograph anything and everything and post those images online.

Here is Federal Court Judge Kevin Castel 's justification for allowing this infringement on my right to free expression under the First Amendment.

“Selfies and smartphone cameras have been prevalent since 2007. A last-minute, judicially-imposed change in the protocol at 5,300 polling places would be a recipe for delays and a disorderly election, as well-intentioned voters either took the perfectly posed selfie or struggled with their rarely-used smartphone camera. This would not be in the public interest, a hurdle that all preliminary injunctions must cross.” [...]

“Without the statute, employers, unions, and religious groups could encourage their members to upload images of their marked ballots to a single location to prove their commitment to the designated candidate. Those who declined to post a selfie could be swiftly outed and subjected to retaliation. This not-so-subtle form of voter intimidation is squarely within the zone of the statute’s intended reach.

I'll let you be the judge of how high the bullshit meter goes up for that claim.

For your information, when reviewing a law that infringes on one's rights under the First amendment, the usual standard of review in a 1st amendment case where the state law imposes a content based restriction on free speech (i.e., one where "the reason for the regulation is based on the content of the message") is the "strict scrutiny" test. To meet its burden under the strict scrutiny standard, the state must show two things:

1. Does the regulation further a compelling governmental interest?
2. Are the means used narrowly tailored to accomplish that governmental interest?

The "strict scrutiny" standard was the one used by a Federal Judge in New Hampshire to invalidate that state's similar ban on photographing or making a digital image of one's ballot. There Judge Sandra Lynch (presumably no relation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch) ruled that the state's interest "to prevent situations in which voters could be coerced into providing proof that they voted in a particular way, and thus as a means to prevent vote-coercion or vote-buying" was bull shit. Well, that wasn't what she actually said in her opinion, but that's what it amounted to:

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. As the plaintiffs note, "small cameras" and digital photography "have been in use for at least 15 years," and New Hampshire cannot identify a single complaint of vote buying or intimidation related to a voter's publishing a photograph of a marked ballot during that period.

New York essentially based justifying a ban on "ballot selfies" on the same argument made by New Hampshire. Specifically, New York claimed that the reason for the law was to prevent voter intimidation and bribery by unions, businesses, religious groups and so forth. Evidence that any group has ever taken action in New York to "coerce or bribe" voters to take "ballot selfies" was not presented at the hearing before the federal court. It would thus seem to be a slam dunk winner for the plaintiffs in the case.

However, unlike Judge Lynch, Judge Castel, for reasons that I find remarkably unconvincing, chose to review the New York law banning "ballot selfies" under the "rational basis" standard. The rational basis test only requires the state to show is that its justification for a law infringing on the First Amendment is "reasonable." No evidence of whether the law works to protect a governmental or public interest need be presented, only that the reasonable possibility that the law works to benefit the public by denying the right to freedom of expression.

As you can imagine, the rational basis test is a very low bar to meet. Indeed, the government almost always wins when the "rational basis" test is applied, since you only need to say that it is reasonable to assume your rationale for prohibiting free speech might exist and thus the law is reasonable. And that is what Judge Castel did. He just assumed taking selfies of one's ballot would result in chaos at the voting precincts. He also made this ridiculously laughable statement as to why banning selfies of one's ballot is a reasonable thing to do to prevent voter intimidation:

Because of the statute, those who would engage in ballot policing, for the purpose of bribery or to enforce orthodoxy among members of a group, whether members of union, employees of a company, or members of a religious group, have longed been deprived of an essential tool for success.[2] The absence of recent evidence of this kind of voter bribery or intimidation does not mean that the motivation to engage in such conduct no longer exists. Rather, it is consistent with the continued effectiveness of the New York statute.

So, instead of allowing New Yorkers to take selfies of their ballots unimpeded by fear of arrest, Judge Castel chose to enforce a 19th century law and turn poll workers into junior law enforcement officials, causing them to waste their valuable time and resources watching all the voters to make sure none of them takes a picture with their smart phones showing how they voted. Talk about the potential for causing chaos. All it will take is for one over-zealous poll worker to call the police to arrest a voter who photographed their ballot to frighten, confuse and outrage those waiting in line to vote. Not to mention the chilling effect it would have on anyone who took a ballot selfie without being discovered by the poll workers.

But hey it must be worth it to deny my fellow New Yorkers and I our freedom of expression, because - reasons. You know, one of the so-called freedoms our men and women in the military are fighting to protect by bombing brown people in the Middle East.

So, in lieu of my own ballot, here is a image from my local board of elections (cropped to show only those races where the Green Party was on the ballot) of what my ballot looked like before I filled in the little ovals with a black felt tipped pen. You'll just have to imagine they were properly blacked out for the Green Party candidates on the ballot, Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka (US Pres. & VP, respectively) and Robin Laverne Wilson (US Senate-NY). Just like I'll have to imagine that my vote for them will be accurately counted.

2016 ballot 2.jpg

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

15032302_10211845756528599_1480895051123680754_n.jpg

No law against it in Pennsylvania. If I personally ruined PA for Clinton, so much the better.

up
0 users have voted.

“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”

Steven D's picture

but other than that, yes it does.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

I'm not a green, I'm a red, but I'd love to see a party left of the Dems crack 5%. Whatever percentage, the Dems need to understand they lose votes when they nominate shit.

up
0 users have voted.

“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”

Zenza's picture

I can see some groups on whom pressure might be applied by the duopoly and its agents, sad to say. In any case, I have no doubts about your ballot, Steven. Smile

Edited to fix "in any case" which was "corrected" to "incandescent."

up
0 users have voted.

We use lines to connect one end of an arrow to the other, I gladly connected Jill Steins arrow. We had Green party candidates on the ballot for every major race including our senate race for which I also connected the arrows. The only Dem's I voted for was for a couple local Crook (Cook) County officials that I believe are better than the Repugs and there was no Green candidates.

up
0 users have voted.
Late Again's picture

what the law is. It's my goddamned ballot and the picture was taken at home.

The write-in for US Rep was the only approved Green Party write-in candidate for my district; the Dems I voted for were Berniecrats.

20161104_141510.png

up
0 users have voted.

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain

RejectingThe3rdWay's picture

Unlike you Steven D, I was able to vote Green 3 Times
President
US Senate
State Senate

State Assembly was a Dem unopposed, but running on two lines. So he got the vote on the Independent line
(only because I don't want a machine not counting a ballot for leaving a choice blank)

US House D versus R bot on multiple lines. Pissed at my Congress-critter for being an early $Hillary super-delegate so I voted for the R on a third party line.

up
0 users have voted.

When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!

boriscleto's picture

John DeFrancisco almost always runs unopposed.

I voted for the Democratic candidate in the other races, but on the Working Families Party line. I simply skipped the State Senate and Family Court Judge races.

Katko will win the US House seat anyway, so I didn't bother to write in the Berniecrat who was in the primary.

up
0 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

For Stein/Hawkins for President. Howie Hawkins is the Green Party vice presidential candidate in MN. Here's a link https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_in_Minnesota,_2016

I was expecting Baraka. I like him, he seems fearless.

up
0 users have voted.
boriscleto's picture

Who says he isn't running for office anymore end up on the Green ticket in MN?

up
0 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

and I have Green candidates for three as well (NY); President, Senate & US Congress.

I am still trying to decide what to do with the other choices. I am so pissed off with the Dems that I am sorely tempted to vote Repub or Conservative for every thing else since that is all that is available.

In my district, it is so ultra blue that it wouldn't make a difference except to show that I am not happy with the Dems.

Aggressive

up
0 users have voted.

Yaldabaoth, Saklas I'm calling you. Samael. You're not alone. I said, you're not alone, in your darkness. You're not alone, baby. You're not alone. "Original Sinsuality" Tori Amos

Steven D's picture

I hear Satan is big in the local political scene.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

WaveyDavey's picture

“It is in an incredible honor to vote for my father! He will do such a great job for the U.S.A.! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain”

Trump's son broke the law when he tweeted a picture of a ballot that had been filled out with his father’s name.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/eric-trump-twitter-ballot/

up
0 users have voted.

The people, united, will never be defeated.

Cachola's picture

and Justin Timberlake...Oh, and this one is funny Baltimore's state attorney.

I am not judging too harshly (except the prosecutor) because I have been tempted. (Yes, in 2008 Sad )

up
0 users have voted.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.

Steven D's picture

All things considered. Me, I wasn't too sure.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Cachola's picture

Rich and famous, no consequences. You or me, make an example of them!

up
0 users have voted.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.

riverlover's picture

I got back from voting similarly in the Pres election, Green for anti-Schumer, WFP for a Dem candidate for NY-23 only to attempt kick-out of the Republican Rep and then WFP (D) for Town Board. Stymied by DA, not enough information. And we never want to see a DA until necessary. Cheers! I was #448 in Dryden #9 so turnout is good.

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Steven D's picture

Though it's hard to judge based on a sample size of one. I voted around 10 am. Took about 30 minutes. I live in Trumpland so I imagine most of them were there for him.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

elenacarlena's picture

though I believe Kentucky also has a "no selfies" law.

On our machines, you would only see the vote recorded on the first page, which is where you would take the photo of filling in for the Greens or whoever. You then review all your votes several screens later. You can then go back and change your votes if you want. You then go back to the review page and when you're happy with it, push Vote. Only then are your choices locked in - and at that point it no longer shows your choices! It says "Thank you for voting," with a waving American flag.

So I would kind of enjoy "proving" to someone how I voted, because I could then go back and vote for someone else and they would never know.

But no, they take won't let anyone buy my temporary vote. Dang.

up
0 users have voted.

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Steven D's picture

Our optical scanners simply tell us if the ballot has been accepted or not, not whether it was counted correctly. Then again we do have a paper trail, not that I ever expect that trail to be looked at.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott