Judge Says New Hampshire’s Ban on ‘Ballot Selfies’ Violates the First Amendment and ‘Common Sense’
UPDATE: The state appealed our win in this case, and oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is being held on September 13, 2016.
Andrew Langlois lives in Berlin, a small city in northern New Hampshire with a population of 10,000. During the September 2014 primary election, Andrew, who was frustrated with the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate, wrote the name “Akira” as a write-in candidate. Akira was the name of Andrew’s dog that passed away just days before the primary election.
Andrew snapped a photograph of the ballot’s U.S. Senate section with his phone. He then cast his ballot and went home. He later posted the photograph on Facebook, along with commentary reflecting his frustration with his Republican choices for U.S. Senate.
After the election, Andrew received a call from an investigator at the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office. The investigator told Andrew that he was being investigated for posting a photo of his marked ballot on social media in violation of New Hampshire law.
Yes, you heard that right. New Hampshire was investigating Andrew for engaging in political speech on the Internet.
Andrew ran afoul of a New Hampshire law, enacted in 2014, that bans a person from displaying a photograph of a marked ballot reflecting “how he or she has voted,” including on the Internet through social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Under the quickly dubbed “ballot selfie” law, willfully engaging in this form of political speech is a violation-level offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.
This New Hampshire case is yet another reminder that we must remain vigilant against attacks on online speech.
After hearing Andrew’s story, the ACLU of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Andrew and two other voters — including a member of the New Hampshire legislature — challenging the law as violating the First Amendment.
On August 11, 2015, a federal judge , ruling that the law “deprives voters of one of their most powerful means of letting the world know how they voted.” For example, this form of speech can convey a sense of pride and excitement from an 18-year-old, newly minted voter who is enthusiastic about voting in her first presidential selection. It can convey, as it did with Andrew, the message of political protest against one’s choices for public office. The court understood that these messages lose their salience without the photograph of the marked ballot.
Unfortunately, this New Hampshire law is part of a national trend.
The digital revolution has produced the most diverse, participatory, and amplified communications medium humans have ever had: the Internet. As this medium has become more pervasive in society, state legislatures have passed laws restricting how every day citizens can use the Internet. This has included attempts to create new decency restrictions for online content, limit minors’ access to information on the Internet, or allow the unmasking of anonymous speakers without careful court scrutiny. Though well intentioned, these laws often have the unintended consequence of suppressing innocent speech protected under the First Amendment.
The New Hampshire legislature’s idea behind its ban on ballot selfies was to prevent illegal vote buying and voter coercion. But the law had one huge problem. Rather than limiting the law’s reach to online displays of marked ballots linked to these illegal schemes, the law banned innocent displays of marked ballots on social media — speech which is almost always political in nature.
As United States District Judge Paul Barbadoro wrote: “[T]he means that the state has chosen to address the issue will, for the most part, punish only the innocent while leaving actual participants in vote buying and voter coercion schemes unscathed.” But he wasn’t finished, adding, “both history and common sense undermine rather than support the state’s contention that vote buying and voter coercion will occur if the state is not permitted to bar voters from displaying images of their completed ballots.”
Put another way, the First Amendment does not allow states to broadly ban innocent political speech with the hope that such a sweeping ban will address underlying criminal conduct.
This New Hampshire case is yet another reminder that we must remain vigilant against attacks on online speech. If First Amendment protections are to enjoy enduring relevance in the 21st century, they must apply with full force to speech conducted online and through social media platforms, especially where this speech is political in nature.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.