Can voting selfies sway the election? It depends which state you ask.

Some states have lifted or relaxed their restrictions on ballot selfies, while others have remained firm against a practice they say can compromise the integrity of their elections. 

M. Spencer Green/AP
Voters cast their ballots in the Illinois primary in Hinsdale, Ill., March 2014. States have been confronted with whether they should allow voters to take "ballot selfies" this election.

Ballot selfie or no ballot selfie? That is the question states have been confronted with in the runup to Election Day on Nov. 8.

Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey reaffirmed Thursday that Colorado forbids the practice of snapping a picture of a completed ballot. The reminder comes after federal courts barred similar laws in New Hampshire and Indiana earlier this year.

Posting selfies and other pictures to Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and other forms of social media have become an intrinsic part of how younger generations communicate. But this 21st century practice clashes with state laws that, in some case, date back more than 100 years.

Opponents of selfie bans say states must catch up to the times. They argue ballot selfies are a form of free speech that promotes participation in the democratic process. But proponents claim these laws are necessary to prevent the corruption of elections.   

“We have a law that says well you can’t prove to someone that you voted a particular way so that we protect the integrity of the election system,” Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams told 9News.

Meanwhile, states have been creative in how they allow, forbid, or turn a blind eye to ballot selfies.

There is no federal law that forbids voters from posting a picture of a completed ballot online.

About 25 states have banned the practice. The laws arose from a desire to prevent political hacks from requiring voters prove they voted for a candidate in order to bribe or coerce them. Colorado instituted its version of the law in the 1890s because voters who showed their ballots could receive prizes such as free drinks, according to The Washington Times. 

But today, cellphone cameras, combined with Millennials’ inclinations to document their lives online, have led many states to lift  or relax these laws. Hawaii passed a law this year that allows voters to share a digital image of one’s own marked ballot. Oregon voters are free to photograph their ballots because all voting there is done by mail. Louisiana permits the practice, even though Secretary of State Tom Schedler has said he isn’t a fan of it. While these and other states recognize (sometimes begrudgingly) ballot selfies are a form of expression, others continue to oppose the practice.

In Illinois, ballot selfies are banned by a law that considers “knowingly” marking your ballot so that another person can see it a penalty. The felony carries a prison sentence of one to three years. In Alaska, state law bans voters from showing their marked ballots, but a spokesman told the Associated Press there is no way to enforce it. In Colorado, ballot selfies are considered a misdemeanor. A 2016 bill failed to repeal the ban. 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado responded to the Denver district attorney’s reminder with calls for him to retract the statement because it was a “misguided threat to prosecute voters,” according to The Washington Times.

While a federal appeals court in Boston struck down a similar New Hampshire law earlier this month, the ACLU of New Hampshire told the Christian Science Monitor’s Amanda Hoover all states should make sure their laws conform with the times.

“We need to make sure that the First Amendment is meaningful in the 21st century as new forms of communication are created,” says Gilles Bissonnette, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Hampshire, in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor.

“When a state tries to update an old law to deal with new forms of criminal behavior, it needs to do so in a way that’s tailored and respects free speech,” he says.

That will mean creating pinpointed, rather than blanketed, adjustments to current laws, Mr. Bissonnette says – something the court ruled New Hampshire failed to do with its ballot photography ban.

Snapchat, which filed an amicus brief in the spring in opposition to the now overturned New Hampshire law, believes ballot selfies even surpass other forms of speech.

“It is precisely because a ballot selfie proves how a voter has exercised her franchise that it is an unmatched expression of civic engagement,” it said in the brief. “There is, simply put, no substitute for this speech.”

Snapchat added in a statement: “Whether it’s a campaign button or a selfie from the ballot box, Snapchat believes that expressing participation in the democratic process is an important part of free speech and civic engagement that the First Amendment roundly protects.”

To see a state-by-state list, visit The Huffington Post and the Digital Media Law Project.

This report contains material from the Associated Press. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Can voting selfies sway the election? It depends which state you ask.
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today