U.S. Court Of Appeals Upholds Ruling That New Hampshire's Silly Ballot Selfie Ban Violated The First Amendment

You may recall that roughly a year ago, a federal judge struck down a New Hampshire law that made "ballot selfies" illegal. The state had essentially updated its laws revolving around limiting the ability to sell votes or influence the public through depicting who a person voted for to include criminalizing anyone that took a picture of their completed ballot and shared it on social media. The state had said that allowing that sort of thing encouraged voter corruption, with the idea that ballot selfies would be used as a form of proof that a bought vote had been completed, or might otherwise be used to influence other members of the public as to how to vote. It was a strange theory, given how unlikely it would be for a corrupted voter to post evidence of his or her corruption on Facebook, not to mention that stating that a person essentially couldn't engage in a form of political speech via a picture was flatly unconstitutional. The federal judge agreed.

But, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, New Hampshire appealed this ruling. And so it went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit... which found the law to be flatly unconstitutional as well.

The court held this statute violated the First Amendment; whether or not it's viewed as content-based (and I think it should be), the statute is unconstitutional because it fails even the "intermediate scrutiny" applied to content-neutral speech restrictions.

From the ruling itself:

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...But even accepting the possibility that ballot selfies will make vote buying and voter coercion easier by providing proof of how the voter actually voted, the statute still fails for lack of narrow tailoring.

The ruling goes on to detail the two reasons. First, the court points out that none of the fears the state raises as its reasons for enacting this law have been realized and that curtailing the free speech rights on an entire population over a theoretical problem ain't a thing that the state can do. Second, should those fears actually come to reality, the court points out that there are already laws on the books to address them and, again, limiting free speech rights on an entire population when that's the case isn't going to fly.

The point is that political speech is about as sacred a thing as a secular republic like ours has. That New Hampshire is going to such lengths to keep people from being able to proudly show that they voted, and who they voted for, seems strange for a state with a motto of "Live free or die."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story