Is it prohibited to take a picture of your voting slip?

Kitty-kitty

This is nothing but genuine curiousity. I've already cast my vote today.

I'm aware that laws across quite a few US states ban taking photos in or around the polling stations or showing completed ballots, but google wasn't able to tell me whether it's legal or not here.

Victor

I strongly suspect using any media recording device in a polling station is illegal as it would facilitate vote buying.

AlanS181824

Exactly the same as what Victor has said.
It'd permit the buying votes.

seamus

Does anyone have any links to specific legislation in terms of conduct in polling stations?

Cody Pomeray

Oh God the electoral and electoral amendment acts are a mess, even a consolidated collection would be quite a tome. There's not just one specific statute or regulation dealing with what you might call voter behaviour at the polling station.

However, the piece of legislation relevant to the OP is s.161 of the Electoral Act 1992, seductively entitled "Secrecy".

Part XXIII Miscellaneous

161. Secrecy.

A person who is—
(a) present at the issue of ballot papers to postal voters, or
(b) present while a special voter is voting, or
(c) present at the opening of postal ballot boxes, or
(d) admitted to a polling  station in any capacity, or
(e) present in any capacity at the counting of the votes, shall maintain and aid in maintaining the secrecy of the ballot.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Oh God the electoral and electoral amendment acts are a mess, even a consolidated collection would be quite a tome. There's not just one specific statute or regulation dealing with what you might call voter behaviour at the polling station.

However, the piece of legislation relevant to the OP is s.161 of the Electoral Act 1992, seductively entitled "Secrecy".

In fact a referendum is covered under the Referendum Act 1994 and section 7 deals with secrecy. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0012/sec0007.html#sec7

But in any event I do not believe either section could be used in relation to any person giving any detail of their own voting alone.

brian_t

Taking a photograph of your ballot paper does not prove that you posted it in the ballot box.

Is it correct that if you make a mistake on your ballot paper but not posted it, you can give it back to the polling staff and they will issue you with a fresh ballot.

Cody Pomeray

infosys wrote: »

In fact a referendum is covered under the Referendum Act 1994 and section 7 deals with secrecy. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0012/sec0007.html#sec7

But in any event I do not believe either section could be used in relation to any person giving any detail of their own voting alone.

You're quite right, I probably should have specifically addressed referenda instead of elections.

However, as has been mentioned, there is a purpose to secrecy at the polling booth which goes beyond 'mere' privacy. One of the points of the secret ballot is to prevent corruption, and I do not believe that the courts would disregard that most crucial of objectives.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

brian_t wrote: »

Taking a photograph of your ballot paper does not prove that you posted it in the ballot box.

Is it correct that if you make a mistake on your ballot paper but not posted it, you can give it back to the polling staff and they will issue you with a fresh ballot.

+1 you could take a photo of the original ballot paper with a mark in the 'Yes' box, then you go back to the presiding officer, say you ticked the wrong box and wanted a new ballot paper. Then you mark the 'No' box, take a photo of that and you have two photos showing two different votes!

Cody Pomeray

Yes, but that's quite a different thing to what the OP is asking.

If a person took a photograph of enough ballot papers to allow for every possible alternative, then it's the secrecy of the ballot has been maintained.

Nevertheless, the more popular option, such as appears on facebook and social media around election time, is for a voter to broadcast his own electoral decision.

I find it difficult to imagine a situation where that could be held to be legal: so long as a voter may be voluntarily bribed, or voluntarily use his vote to seek favour at some future time, then there can be no voluntary photography, or filming, of the ballot paper.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I find it difficult to imagine a situation where that could be held to be legal: so long as a voter may be voluntarily bribed, or voluntarily use his vote to seek favour at some future time, then there can be no voluntary photography, or filming, of the ballot paper.

It really isnt about what you find hard to imagine. If we are talking about a criminal sanction, in these circumstances, the sanction really does need to be clearly expressed.

Particularly as the Electoral Act has a dedicated Part that outlines Electoral Offences, and nowhere does it mention an offence of photographing or communicating how one voted (whether orally or by a photograph). Mind you, I havent trawled through all of the amendments so maybe there is one hiding in there somewhere that i have never heard of.

Again, as we are talking about a potential criminal sanction here, the criminal prohibition would need to be clearly expressed in law. Particularly where the legislators went to so much bother to list numerous electoral offences and didnt bother with this particular one.

Cody Pomeray

drkpower wrote: »

It really isnt about what you find hard to imagine. If we are talking about a criminal sanction, in these circumstances, the sanction really does need to be clearly expressed.

Particularly as the Electoral Act has a dedicated Part that outlines Electoral Offences, and nowhere does it mention an offence of photographing or communicating how one voted (whether orally or by a photograph). Mind you, I havent trawled through all of the amendments so maybe there is one hiding in there somewhere that i have never heard of.

If you havent bothered to look at the offences, how can you say "nowhere does it mention..."?

s.137 of the electoral act 1992 under the titled "Breach of Secrecy"

137.—(1) A person who is present at the issue of ballot papers to postal voters or at voting by special voters or at the opening of postal ballot boxes shall be guilty of an offence if, except for some purpose authorised by law, he—

(a) communicates, before the poll is closed, to any person any information obtained at the said issue or the said voting as to the official mark, or

(b) attempts to ascertain at the said issue or the said voting or the said opening the number on the back of any ballot paper or the candidate for whom any vote is given in any ballot paper, or communicates to any other person any information with respect thereto obtained at the said issue or the said voting or the said opening.

(2) A person admitted to a polling station in any capacity at a Dáil election shall be guilty of an offence if, before the poll is closed, he communicates, except for some purpose authorised by law, to any other person any information as to the name or the number on the register of Dáil electors of any voter who has or has not applied for a ballot paper or voted at a polling station, or as to the official mark.

(3) A person who is present in any capacity at the counting of the votes at a Dáil election shall be guilty of an offence if, except for some purpose authorised by law, he ascertains or attempts to ascertain at such counting the number on the back of any ballot paper or if at any time he communicates any information obtained at such count as to the candidate for whom any vote is given on any ballot paper.

(4) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, at a Dáil election, except for some purpose authorised by law, he—

(a) interferes with or attempts to interfere with a voter when marking his ballot paper, or obtains or attempts to obtain in a polling station information as to the candidate for whom any voter in the station is about to vote or has voted, or

(b) communicates at any time to any other person any information obtained in a polling station as to the candidate for whom a voter in that station is about to vote or has voted, or as to the number on the back of the ballot paper issued to a voter at that station, or

(c) directly or indirectly induces any voter to display his ballot paper after the said voter has marked it so as to make known to any person the name of the candidate for whom the said voter has or has not voted, or

(d) interferes with or attempts to interfere with the receipt, marking or return of a ballot paper by any postal voter or attempts to obtain information as to the candidate for whom any such voter has or has not voted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If you havent bothered to look at the offences, how can you say "nowhere does it mention..."?

s.137 of the electoral act 1992 under the titled "Breach of Secrecy"

Cody, you need to tone down that tone of yours. It doesnt do you any favours.

I said nowhere does it mention 'an offence of photographing or communicating how one voted (whether orally or by a photograph)'. It doesnt.

It seems you are suggesting that that would be a criminal offence; but you havent pointed to where that criminal offence lies.

Where you might be going wrong is thinking that (4) (b) prohibits a voter from communicating his vote after he has voted. But it doesnt; (4) (b) clearly prohibits another person from divulging how a voter has voted. If the former interpretation were correct, then a voter who tells his mates who he voted for in the pub afterwards is guilty of an offence.

saltyjack silverblade

Enda will 'wallop' you if he finds out.

Cody Pomeray

drkpower wrote: »

Cody, you need to tone down that tone of yours. It doesnt do you any favours.

I said nowhere does it mention 'an offence of photographing or communicating how one voted (whether orally or by a photograph)'. It doesnt.

It seems you are suggesting that that would be a criminal offence; but you havent pointed to where that criminal offence lies.

Where you might be going wrong is thinking that (4) (b) prohibits a voter from communicating his vote after he has voted. But it doesnt; (4) (b) clearly prohibits another person from divulging how a voter has voted. If the former interpretation were correct, then a voter who tells his mates who he voted for in the pub afterwards is guilty of an offence.

I think you're being a little sensitive. It's perfectly legitimate to ask how can you say "nowhere does it mention...", if you havent bothered to look at the offences, "breach of secrecy" being a discrete category, near the top of the list.

I have not necessarily been arguing that a criminal offence exists in relation to the photography of one's own marked ballot paper, I gace been taking a broader focus.

I accept that, in a criminal prosecution, the courts would prefer a narrow construction of sub section 4(b) of s.137 of the 1992 amending act. Certainly, "information obtained", in that section, implies receiving a thing which derives from 'the other', as opposed to one's own self. Nevertheless, it might apply to a host website, such as boards.ie, if it were to host images of users' voting preferences.

Further, subsection 2 is a lot clearer, and the most narrow of interpretation could hardly impede the construction of a criminal offence therein.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think you're being a little sensitive. It's perfectly legitimate to ask how can you say "nowhere does it mention...", if you havent bothered to look at the offences, "breach of secrecy" being a discrete category, near the top of the list.

I said nowhere does it mention 'an offence of photographing or communicating how one voted (whether orally or by a photograph)'. And I think you accept that it doesnt!

So, in that context, there was no reason to suggest that I hadnt bothered to look at the offences - and more importnatly, doing so isnt especially helpful to conducive discussion.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I have not necessarily been arguing that a criminal offence exists in relation to the photography of one's own marked ballot paper, I gace been taking a broader focus.

It appeared that you had been suggesting just that; but I think that it is right that you are not doing so any longer.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Further, subsection 2 is a lot clearer, and the most narrow of interpretation could hardly impede the construction of a criminal offence therein.

Subsection 2 of s. 137? Even if that extends to a voter communicating how he had voted (whether orally or by photograph) - and it is very hard to see how it would extend that far particularly given the strict interpretation of criminal statutes - it only applies to communications before the poll is closed.

Cody Pomeray

drkpower wrote: »

Subsection 2 of s. 137? Even if that extends to a voter communicating how he had voted (whether orally or by photograph) - and it is very hard to see how it would extend that far particularly given the strict interpretation of criminal statutes - it only applies to communications before the poll is closed.

What do mean "that far"? I haven't said it extends beyond the clear language of that subsection.

In short, I believe s.137, with which I am glad you are now enlightened (no need to thank me, send me flowers, flatter me, and so on), may create a criminal offence of photographing one's own marked ballot, within the clear language of that section, and may also apply to those who would host and communicate images of a person's ballot paper, such as social media sites or bulletin boards.

Fin.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What do mean "that far"? I haven't said it extends beyond the clear language of that subsection.

In short, I believe s.137, with which I am glad you are now enlightened (no need to thank me, send me flowers, flatter me, and so on), may create a criminal offence of photographing one's own marked ballot, within the clear language of that section, and may also apply to those who would host and communicate images of a person's ballot paper, such as social media sites or bulletin boards.

Fin.

You say it may create a criminal offence of photographing one's own marked ballot but you really havent done anything to support that position.

As a law student, there is a great freedom in being able to say 'may' and 'might' and 'possibly' and then referring to a decision from some jurisdiction or other in support or making a fairly weak though theoretically plausible argument based on a statute. You have the freedom to do that in that academic context.

But when it comes to actually practising, the focus changes. You need to be able to go beyond raising interesting possibilities about the law and instead focus on what the likelihood is.

So while it is an interesting possibility that photographing one's own marked ballot is a criminal offence, the overwhelming likelihood is that it is not.

Santa Cruz

Victor wrote: »

I strongly suspect using any media recording device in a polling station is illegal as it would facilitate vote buying.

Is it legal or illegal? Suspicion is not proof.

Victor

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Is it legal or illegal? Suspicion is not proof.

I am not a lawyer.

Pat Mustard

The question that the OP asked was whether taking a picture of your own voting slip would be an offence, of itself. I didn't find any offence that prohibited taking a picture of one's own voting slip, if that is all there is to it.

Link to Garda Síochána Guide on various crimes associated with elections and referenda. If you want to read all of that, knock yourselves out.