IP: Re:vote trading and Internet voting

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> X-Sender: >X-Sender: Barrys@208.151.193.2
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:50:41 -0500
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Barry Steinhardt <Barrys () aclu org>
> Subject: Re: IP: vote trading and Internet voting
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I thought your readers my be interested in the suit the ACLU has brought 
> to against the California officials who have attempted to shut down Voter 
> Exchange.com. The shut down orders represent the worst sort knee jerk 
> action against speech on the Internet which occurs routinely and is well 
> protected off-line.
>
>
> Barry Steinhardt
>
>
>
>
>
> ACLU Press Release: 11-02-00 -- ACLU Charges Political Censorship, 
> Challenges CA's Shutdown of Votexchange.com
>
>   ACLU Charges Political Censorship, Challenges CA's Shutdown of 
> Votexchange.com
>
>   Thursday, November 2, 2000
>   LOS ANGELES  The ACLU affiliates of Southern California and San Diego
>   announced today that they will seek a temporary restraining order against
>   California Secretary of State Bill Jones, who threatened criminal 
> prosecution
>   against a voter discussion and strategizing web site called Voteswap 2000.
>   As a result of a letter Jones sent to Voteswap, that web site and two 
> others,
>   including the ACLU client votexchange2000.com, decided to shut down 
> this week
>   rather than run the risk of being prosecuted. The ACLU is also filing the
>   lawsuit on behalf of a prospective voter. The National Voting Rights 
> Project
>   joins the ACLU as co-counsel in the case.
>
>   "Votexchange2000 and other similar web sites have a clear political 
> message,"
>   said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern 
> California, "and
>   that qualifies them for the highest level of protection under the First
>   Amendment, whether or not Secretary Jones approves of their message or 
> aim."
>   "Jones's interpretation of this statute is so far-reaching," he added, 
> "that
>   it could encompass a vast array of voting-related behavior and speech 
> which we
>   all recognize as perfectly legitimate, even if we don't practice them
>   ourselves."
>
>   The vote discussion and matching sites sprang up as early as October 1, 
> and
>   several were launched recently in response to an on-line opinion piece
>   advocating that voters get together on-line and strategize about how to
>   accomplish their shared aims. Scores of thousands of potential voters have
>   visited the sites since they were launched.
>
>   Republican Secretary of State Bill Jones cracked down on the innovative
>   discussion of voting strategies, claiming that sites which host and 
> facilitate
>   such discussions violate California's Election Code § 18521, which 
> prohibits
>   offering payment or any other "valuable consideration" to people so 
> that they
>   will or will not vote.
>
>   ACLU attorneys say the law is not applicable, or, if construed to be
>   applicable, that it is not, in that case, Constitutionally sound.
>   "Discussing and agreeing to a co-operative voting strategy is absolutely
>   distinct from offering or receiving payment for a vote," said 
> Eliasberg. "This
>   is not equivalent to handing someone a five-dollar bill -- it is an 
> obviously
>   unenforceable and unverifiable personal pledge to vote in a certain way."
>   "Jones's interpretation of this law could conceivably qualify any kind of
>   speech as an inducement," he added. "If I promise to commend a person for
>   voting in a way I approve of, is that offering an inducement?"
>
>   Eliasberg offered the following examples of voting-related behavior and 
> speech
>   that Jones's interpretation of the law would make criminal:
>  Two spouses discuss their vote, realize they disagree on every important
>   issue, and agree that, since they're cancelling one another out, 
> neither will
>   vote.
>
> Two friendly legislators who disagree with one another's positions arrange
>   not to vote on two separate occasions, when one, then the other, is 
> absent,
>   thus cancelling out the effect of their absences on the final decisions 
> made.
>  ; A politician such as Governor George Bush or Vice President Al Gore 
> offers a
>   monetary inducement in the form of a tax cut to a voter.
>
>   A politician, during tough economic times, promises "a chicken in every 
> pot"
>   if voters cast their vote for him.
>    A political columnist urges voters to do exactly what the web sites in
>   question urge them to do.
>   "Bill Jones seems to be afraid of the Internet and the powers of 
> expression
>   and association that it gives to people," said Eliasberg. "That power of
>   combining immediate association and direct speech is the reason people 
> have
>   sought to regulate the Internet more strictly than other media. I don't
>   believe that Jones would have made the same threats if the same content 
> had
>   been expressed in a more traditional medium such as a newspaper column 
> or a
>   call-in radio show."
>   "Jones and other government officials and agencies need to take 
> notice," said
>   Eliasberg. "The ACLU will not allow the Internet to become the First 
> Amendment
>   punching bag, to become the one medium in which we allow the government 
> to act
>   out its habitual suspicion of public free speech and free association."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 02:22:48 -0800
> > > From: Ed Gerck <egerck () safevote com>
> > > To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
> > > Subject: vote trading and Internet voting
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave: Hi! This may interest your IP'ers]
> > >
> > > The question of the day is vote trading and using the Internet
> > > for vote trading.
> > >
> > > First, I would like to point out that this action is occurring with
> > > *paper ballots* and shows that the Internet is this train that is
> > > changing our lives whether we follow the ostrich approach or not. So,
> > > those that do not want Internet voting because they do not want the
> > > Internet to change the way they vote, are just trying to bury their
> > > heads in the  sand and ignore this train that is coming, ever closer.
> > >
> > > Much better, IMO, is to face the situation with all problems and
> > > also potential solutions in order to advance voting to the Internet
> > > age.  Fraudsters and interested sides are already doing so. Serious
> > > tests are being done, like the test contracted with Safevote by the
> > > California Secretary of State and being carried out in Contra Costa
> > > County -- with an open call and inside information to help attackers
> > > [see http://www.safevote.com/tech.htm ]
> > >
> > > I also think that enforcement of no vote trading would require as a
> > > minimum a violation of individual privacy.  This poses a considerable
> > > problem in an area where, yes, there should be no compromise when
> > > voting is considered.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Ed Gerck