HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Election Reform (Group) » Judge refuses to block Ne...

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 08:18 PM

Judge refuses to block New York 'ballot selfie' law

Source: Reuters

U.S. | Thu Nov 3, 2016 | 5:26pm ED

Judge refuses to block New York 'ballot selfie' law

By Jonathan Stempel | NEW YORK

A federal judge on Thursday refused to block enforcement of a New York state law barring voters from taking photographs of their marked ballots so that they could post them on social media websites.

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan said it would "wreak havoc on election-day logistics" to issue a preliminary injunction against the law, which prohibits the display of "ballot selfies."

Under the law, which dates from the 19th century, it is a misdemeanor for voters to share the contents of completed ballots. Violators could face up to one year in prison.

Three voters sued on Oct. 26 to block enforcement of the law, saying that sharing ballot selfies was a form of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-selfie-new-york-idUSKBN12Y2MQ

2 replies, 1146 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge refuses to block New York 'ballot selfie' law (Original post)
Eugene Nov 2016 OP
rickford66 Nov 2016 #1
eppur_se_muova Nov 2016 #2

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 08:37 PM

1. "refused", "block", "enforcement", "barring"

I had to read the first sentence a few times to understand it. Maybe I'm just tired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 10:27 PM

2. When I voted in MD in 2008, there was a sign prohibiting video cameras in the polling station ...

I thought that was strange, and asked one of the poll workers for the reason behind it. She told me that the state govt. had warned that some electronic devices could generate RFI which could affect the voting machines. I've never heard anything more about this, but it left me wondering ... if you could find a way to screw up the machines with a powerful RF signal, then all you would have to do would be to go into precincts known to vote the "wrong" way and scramble their votes. Even if you had no real control over the details, just by the law of averages you would tip the balance away from the favored candidate in whatever precincts you acted.

Just another reason to avoid electronic voting machines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread