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
>>
>>