Federal court to decide if ballot selfies are tool of free speech or coercion

Is taking a photo of your ballot an expression of free speech or a potential receipt for a ballot-buyer? A federal court of appeals plans to decide just that Tuesday when a group of judges from the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston will evaluate a New Hampshire ban on ballot selfies, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Ballot secrecy laws date back to an era when it was more common to try to buy votes, and since at least 1979 it has been illegal for a New Hampshire voter to show his or her ballot to anyone else as a means of confirming for whom he or she voted. In 2014, that was clarified to include "taking a digital image or photograph of his or her marked ballot and distributing or sharing the image via social media."

But in court in 2015, the ban was ruled unconstitutional because New Hampshire officials didn't give any evidence indicating ballot selfies have ever actually been used in a vote-buying operation or as a means of coercion. Rather, free speech advocates say that by banning selfies, New Hampshire is infringing on a person's political speech. "The ballot selfie captures the very essence of that process as it happens — the pulled lever, the filled-in bubble, the punched-out chad — and thus dramatizes the power that one person has to influence our government," Snapchat Inc., the social media company behind the eponymous temporary photo-messaging app, argued in a filing on the case last April.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Even lacking any solid evidence, New Hampshire doesn't see it the same way as Snapchat, The Wall Street Journal reports. A lawyer working in support of the ban argued in March: The ban "[ensures] purity and integrity of our elections by protecting the longstanding tradition of the secret ballot."