Candidate Fights for ‘Ballot Selfie’ Rights

Voting booth

Susan Hogarth’s fight against North Carolina’s ban on “ballot selfies” could set a groundbreaking precedent for digital expression and electoral regulations.

At a Glance

  • The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is suing the NC State Board of Elections, claiming the ban violates the First Amendment.
  • Susan Hogarth posted a ballot selfie and refused to remove it despite legal threats.
  • North Carolina law criminalizes photographing completed ballots, even in private settings.
  • The lawsuit seeks to halt the enforcement of the ban before Election Day.
  • This case underscores issues of state control over individual expression.

The Lawsuit: A Fight for Free Speech

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has taken up the legal battle to overturn North Carolina’s restrictions on ballot selfies. At the heart of this controversy is Susan Hogarth, who boldly posted a selfie with her marked ballot on social media and now faces potential fines and jail time.

Despite receiving threats from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, Hogarth has refused to remove her post, asserting her constitutional right to free speech. FIRE’s lawsuit argues that North Carolina’s laws are outdated, originally designed to prevent voter intimidation and fraud, but they now infringe on contemporary forms of political expression.

Interestingly, this lawsuit points to a larger issue that has national implications: the balance between election integrity and free speech. According to FIRE, one in ten Americans have taken a ballot selfie, showing its popularity as an expression of political support and civic pride.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The foundation of Hogarth’s argument is the protection of political speech under the First Amendment. North Carolina’s law criminalizes any photography of completed ballots, even in private settings like one’s home. This ban is justified by the state as a measure against vote-buying schemes, but FIRE argues it as a content-based restriction on speech, which is presumptively unconstitutional.

“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 FIRE attorney Jeff Zeman. “That’s core political speech protected by the First Amendment.”

The Personal Struggle of Susan Hogarth

Susan Hogarth’s story is both unique and emblematic. She took her ballot selfie on March 5, endorsing Libertarian Party candidates, and later received a threatening letter from the North Carolina State Board of Elections. They warned her that photographing her ballot is a Class 1 misdemeanor, urging her to remove the post or face potential criminal prosecution.

“It would have been easier to just take the post down,” said Hogarth. “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.”

Outcome and Broader Implications

The outcome of this case could potentially change how digital expression is treated under electoral laws across the United States. Hogarth’s lawsuit also aims to challenge five state statutes that ban such photography, asserting that existing laws can counteract vote-buying without infringing on free speech rights. Hogarth and her attorney Jeff Zeman emphasize that political speech is a fundamental constitutional right and that any regulations against it are generally unconstitutional.

The fallout from this legal battle could be a defining moment for free speech in the digital age, potentially heralding a return to common sense and individual liberty. As we await the conclusion of this legal battle, it’s essential to remember that the rights enshrined in the Constitution should always be upheld and protected, even in rapidly changing times.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR