North Carolina Threatened To Prosecute Her for Taking a 'Ballot Selfie.' Now, She's Suing.

Susan Hogarth posted a photo of her primary ballot. In North Carolina, that's against the law.

There's a pretty good chance you've taken a "ballot selfie"—a picture of or with your completed ballot. Around one in 10 Americans say they have, and pictures of filled-in ballots are common on social media during election season. However, taking a picture of your ballot is a crime in 14 states, leading to possible fines and jail time.

A North Carolina woman is challenging her state's ban on ballot selfies, arguing that she has a First Amendment right to take a picture of her own ballot—and to post it online. 

"Ballot selfie bans turn innocent Americans into criminals for nothing more than showing their excitement about how they voted, or even just showing that they voted," said Jeff Zeman, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the First Amendment group that filed the suit. "That's core political speech protected by the First Amendment."

According to the lawsuit, North Carolina resident Susan Hogarth took a photo this March with her completed primary ballot. She posted the photo to X, with the caption: "Laws against #ballotselfie are bullshit."

Just a week after the primary election, Hogarth received a letter from the North Carolina State Board of Elections threatening prosecution for her post, demanding that she take down the post or face legal action. As of the filing of the suit, Hogarth's post had received less than 3,000 views—hardly a viral post. Hogarth has refused to take down the post and says that she will continue to take ballot selfies.

"Between March 2016 and March 2024, the State Board investigated at least 50 reports of voters photographing completed ballots from primary and general elections," reads FIRE's suit. "During election cycles from November 2018 through March 2024, officials from at least eight different North Carolina county boards sent reports of voters photographing completed ballots to the State Board."

The lawsuit argues that these investigations—and the multiple North Carolina laws justifying them—obviously violate the First Amendment.

"North Carolina's five statutory provisions banning ballot selfies deprive Hogarth and other voters of their constitutional right to express their core political beliefs through taking and sharing ballot selfies," reads the lawsuit, adding that these laws "place Hogarth and other voters in immediate risk of criminal prosecution when they engage in First Amendment–protected expression by taking and sharing ballot selfies."

"It would have been easier to just take the post down," Hogarth said in a Thursday press release. "But in a free society, you should be able to show the world how you voted without fear of punishment. Privacy is good for those who want it, openness should be available to those who prefer it."

Comments

[Minadin]

There's a pretty good chance you've taken a "ballot selfie"

No, there isn't.

Around one in 10 Americans say they have

It would be illegal to offer odds that low in most gambling facilities.

[diver64]

I've voted in every election since Reagan and it never occurred to me to take a picture of my ballot. What is the reasoning behind a law stopping this?

[A Thinking Mind]

I don’t care one way or another, but you should at least share some of the reasoning behind these types of laws in order to effectively argue why they are flawed.

The places these types of laws are most common is in the Deep South. The reason is a history of voter intimidation, specifically racial based. Cameras are banned because photographing people voting can be construed as keeping tabs on them. Employers (and unions) often urge people to vote a certain way, especially in local elections, because elected officials can have a big impact on businesses, and having union bosses taking photos in a polling station can be a bit problematic. Taking a selfie of your ballot can be construed as something you were pressured into doing, as your ballot is supposed to be private.

There’s probably some additional nuance I’m not sharing, but that’s the basic reasoning. It’s Civil Rights era voter protection systems at play, here. Maybe it’s fine if people put on their Big Boy pants and take personal accountability, or maybe it’s fine to have some extra protections in the voting process because the stakes are political power. I certainly don’t feel like the ability to broadcast my ballot to the world is something I particularly need since I can just tell people how I voted without a damned selfie, but there’s arguments about it infringing freedom.

[Rossami]

If your problem is coercion, then target the actual coercion. Don't pass stupid laws that affect law-abiding (that is non-coercing and non-coerced) people while doing nothing to fix the problem you claim to be worried about.

[Ken Arromdee]

This is like saying “if your problem is drunk drivers killing people, just make it illegal to kill people while driving drunk. Don’t pass stupid laws that affect (otherwise) law-abiding people who drink but don’t run anyone over”.

Ballot pictures are strongly associated with, and are a necessary step in, coercion.

(And it's also going to be very difficult to stop the coercion itself. It doesn't benefit the person being coerced to report the coercion, so this is pretty much the only way to stop it.)

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

So, we'll put you down in favor of prohibition.

[Rossami]

Yes, it is in fact exactly like that. And no we (mostly) don't pass laws making alcohol illegal because a couple of people abuse it.

[mulched]

But we do make drunk driving illegal even though most drunk drivers will never harm anyone.

[LIBtranslator]

Speaking of which, where are the republican shrieks that women must be enslaved into involuntary reproduction to protect White Supremacy from Race Suicide and Obamacare? Howcum you girl-bullying faceless he-men aren't whimpering about that existential threat anymore?

[Joe]

There is a reason why a non-coerced person should not post a ballot photo. If a person agrees to sell his vote, the buyer would logically like proof that the purchased vote was, indeed, cast. Some may disagree, but it is a rational response by the state to remove that link in the illegal vote-buying process.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Ding! We have a critical thinker here.

[SQRLSY]

Many, many (the ovary-whelming majority) of mammals have NO compunctions against pooping in pubic! Pubic pooping causes pollution and cuntagious, outrageous diseases! Ergo, my ego and Government Almighty and I will require Joe (ass well ass Chuck P. and Ken Arromdee and A Thinking Mind and udders... All of who ARE pubic-pooping-prone mammals, after all...) to fastidiously wear diapers in pubic! THE SAME RULES FOR ONE AND ALL, I SAY!!!

(Especially when shit brings me POWER!!!)

[LIBtranslator]

Klepto Joe Anonymous here is ok with vote peddling--so long as no evidence can be produced!

[DarrenM]

Why do you think certain people push for mail-in ballots? No need for selfies to prove how you vote. Just hand over your ballot to someone else to fill out for you.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Employers (and unions) often urge people to vote a certain way, especially in local elections,

I am sure the weak-minded cunts that engage in ballot selfies are thinking at some level if they post it and later get fired for being a weak-minded cunt they can claim it as the reason and still collect unemployment.

[SQRLSY]

I am sure the weak-minded cunts that engage in "verbally sharing" their stupid political opinions are thinking at some level if they "verbally share" and later get fired for being a weak-minded cunt they can claim it as the reason and still collect unemployment.

DO NOT "verbally share" your stupid political opinions without the spermissions of Your Moral Superiors such as Up-Chuckles the Snarky Power Pig!!!

[Rubbish!]

Ballot photos should not be banned.

Selfies should be banned. And the people who take them with duck lips, banished.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

There’s a pretty good chance you’ve taken a “ballot selfie”—a picture of or with your completed ballot.

I don’t know anyone who has. But don’t live on social media like a narcissistic fool.

[SQRLSY]

I hear that Mike Pence took a “ballot selfie”...

HANG MIKE PENCE!!!

(So say sore-in-the-cunt cuntsorevaturds like JesseSPAZ!)

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

A lot of Pence up aggression in the Squirrel. Too much GMO seed according to RFK JR. Nuts.

[SQRLSY]

Is the seed that covers Spermy Daniels GMO seed, or twat? The next erections hang in the balance, so cuntsider carefully!

[Social Justice is neither]

We get it Emma, your DNC handlers want to verify that they're getting the votes they're paying for and laws like this get in the way

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Of course. Once the state owns the election process, they can't tolerate any behavior that might interfere with how they want to run it.

Or, as Obama might say about ballots, "You didn't fill that out."

[JasonT20]

Of course. Once the state owns the election process, they can’t tolerate any behavior that might interfere with how they want to run it.

Uh, how do you propose we hold elections without government running them?

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^This is the asshole who supports murder as a preventative for, well, he's not quite sure:

JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

FOAD, shitpile.

[Scotterbee]

Poor Sevo

[Eeyore]

I just got vaxed selfies – those should be illegal.

[TangoDelta]

They can't have people taking pics of their filled out ballots. After all what would happen if everyone did that? The people would have proof of the real election tallies and no government wants that.

[SQRLSY]

I want to PROVE to The Donald, that I really DID vote for Him! Ballot selfies let me do that... And THEN at Blessed long last, The Donald will be able to safely, with confidence, REWARD me with "equal and fair access" to Queen Spermy Daniels!!!

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Where do you think you live? Venezuela?

[LIBtranslator]

Governments are what pass laws against betting on elections. Bets require actual evidence.

[Rick James]

No widespread Ballot selfies.

[Rick James]

I skimmed the article, but... is this a "provision against ballot selfies" like there was a "don't say gay" bill, or is there a provision against "photography in a polling place" provision?

[DRM]

Well, there's not a fully-general ban on photography; the photography provisions are against photography of persons [§ 163-166.3(b)], and photography of completed ballots [§ 163-166.3(c)].

The FIRE lawsuit is explicitly challenging both provisions.

There are additional provisions being challenged, one prohibiting voters from showing their completed ballots to other persons, and another that makes it a crime for anyone with access to an electronic record of a completed ballot to disclose the contents of the ballot.

[Rick James]

There’s a pretty good chance you’ve taken a “ballot selfie”

Um, no...

These are the people that post ballot selfies.

Which reminds me... when's the Nick Gillespie / Lena Dunham interview coming?

[Bobby_Heenan]

Once upon a time only assholes took pictures of themselves.

[Moderation4ever]

The only concern I would think valid for restricting ballot selfies is when they are posted before election days. I would not post a picture of my ballot but have no objection to others doing this, so long as it is done after vote counting has officially begun.

[LIBtranslator]

Republicans always find a rationalization for trying to send men with guns to threaten and kill people for exercising constitutional rights. Remember the masked sockpuppet at election time.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Is this the morning links?
Grasping at straws, gun-grabber's department:

"A California court just found a way around the SCOTUS standard that’s killed other gun laws"
[...]
"Finding evidence from colonial history that the Supreme Court has required to justify restrictions on firearms, a state appeals court has upheld California’s laws banning convicted felons from possessing guns or ammunition.
Thursday’s ruling, in a case from Berkeley, has implications that go far beyond upholding one state gun law..."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-california-court-just-found-a-way-around-the-scotus-standard-that-s-killed-other-gun-laws/ar-AA1phrX8

"...shall not be infringed", asshole.

[DRM]

There's some serious stupidity in this lawsuit. In particular, the FIRE lawsuit asserts that the laws it challenges are content-based restrictions, which is to say that (as the lawsuit itself quotes) they target speech based on “the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed”.

The trouble here is that, of course, the laws involved do not, at all, care what ideas or messages that Ms. Hogarth intends to spread. The lawsuit itself says that she "shared her ballot selfie on X to promote the candidates she voted for, show voters they can vote for third-party candidates, challenge the narrative that voters can only vote for major party candidates, encourage potential voters to vote, commemorate her vote for herself and posterity, express her personal pride in participating in the electoral process, and express her disagreement with North Carolina’s ban on ballot selfies".

Yet laws prohibiting the photography of voters in polling places, photography of completed ballots, showing completed ballots to other people, or the dissemination of electronic records of how a voter voted are quite obviously entirely neutral about all those purposes. The laws do not burden any of her messages in particular compared to someone who wants to promote other or opposed ideas.

A law against photography of a completed ballot, showing completed ballots to other people, or disseminating electronic records of how someone voted is instead, quite obviously, a "time, place, or manner" restriction, caring not about what is said, but how it is said. Whether the laws then properly further a significant governmental interest in making vote-buying or voter intimidation schemes more difficult is another question, but the claim that they are "content-based" (as that term is used in constitutional law) is ridiculous.

[bacchys]

It's a measure of how authoritarian the comments section has become that even here, at a libertarian magazine, commenters are mostly for the government prosecuting people for freely sharing that they voted (and for who).

The state hasn't offered any evidence of a problem for which this is a solution. Absent compelling evidence of a public interest out-weighing her free speech rights, the law should be struck down as unconstitutional.

[LIBtranslator]

The Travis County TX republican clerk trashed my vote cast for Gary Johnson and sent me a scolding note saying I missed some deadline. I sent my ballot from overseas at expense and inconvenience, but I wave the scolding note as proof I voted for legalization, women's rights, against conscription, war and tax-squandering weeks in advance. Let's see Grand Goblin Greg try to sue me!

[DaveM]

It should definitely not be illegal to take a ballot selfie. You are free to tell anyone how you voted, of course.

That said, I personally would not recommend that you share a selfie of your ballot. In fact, I would advise you to keep your votes private, period.

That is because the privacy of a vote is one of the most important methods we have to secure the election process. If sharing one's vote becomes commonplace, then it empowers others to apply some pressure to you to do so. Maybe your employer "encourages" you to post a selfie -- just to make sure you "voted the right way". Or maybe a family member, or some other authority figure.

For that reason alone, keep your vote close to your chest, right along with other private information such as your income, your age, and your opinion about movie franchises.