Read the 9th Circuit Court's decision about vote-trading (pdf)

LOS ANGELES - In a decision stemming from a dispute during the controversial presidential election of 2000, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that so-called 'vote-swapping' websites are protected by the First Amendment.

A number of these websites sprung up in the last weeks of the 2000 campaign between George W. Bush and Al Gore that allowed third-party supporters of Ralph Nader in swing states to strategize with major-party voters in 'safe' states about 'trading' their votes to avoid handing the election to their least-preferred candidate.

The sites were quickly shut down when then-California Secretary of State Bill Jones sent letters to operators of a website threatening to prosecute them for what he called 'vote-buying,' even though no money or other type of financial benefit changed hands.

The ACLU of Southern California and the National Voting Rights Institute represented website operators Alan Porter (voteswap2000.com) and William Cody (voterexchange2000.com) and two individual voters, Patrick Kerr and Steven Lewis. The case, originally filed in November 2000, argued in part that the threats by Jones violated the First Amendment rights of the website operators and exceeded the scope of Jones' authority under California's election code. The National Voting Rights Institute is now affiliated with Demos, a national, non-partisan public policy, research and advocacy center.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling now establishes that the activities that Secretary Jones attempted to squelch 'are at the heart of the liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment' and cannot be prosecuted under vote-buying statutes. The decision will be an important precedent protecting the right of website operators and voters to maintain and use such sites in future presidential elections.

'Technology changes the way politics work, but it doesn't alter the basic principles of democracy,' said Peter Eliasberg, the ACLU/SC's Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights. 'Voters of any political persuasion should be able to meet like-minded voters wherever they are and organize for their candidates without threats to their freedom of speech.'

'The court's decision today recognizes the importance of the Internet as a low-cost means of political communication and a vibrant forum for debate about the presidential election,' said Lisa Danetz, senior counsel at Demos.

This is the second ruling by the 9th Circuit Court that protects the rights of vote-trading websites. In 2005, the appeals court overruled a federal district court that had dismissed the case shortly after the 2000 election. Today's decision confirms that vote swaps are constitutionally protected.

Date

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 12:00am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

First Amendment and Democracy

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

style="float: left; margin: 10px 20px 20px 0px;" width="280" />

Remember "vote-swapping"? That was a free-speech experiment launched by a number of websites during the 2000 presidential campaign between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The websites allowed third-party supporters of Ralph Nader in swing states to strategize with major-party voters in "safe" states about "trading" their votes.

A threat of criminal prosecution by the California secretary of state shut the websites down. Nearly seven years later, a federal court decided the Constitution protects vote swaps — just in time for 2008.

"Technology changes the way politics work, but it doesn't alter the basic principles of democracy," said the ACLU/SC's Peter Eliasberg, who argued the case.

The decision will be an important precedent protecting the right of website operators and voters to maintain and use such sites in future presidential elections.

Date

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 12:00am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

First Amendment and Democracy

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

In a nationwide review of legal rights for immigrants in federal detention, a federal judge has found serious violations of the government's own standards relating to detention conditions.

U.S. District Court Judge Margaret M. Morrow examined never-before-released reports regarding conditions at more than 200 immigration detention facilities and found widespread problems, including lack of access to telephones, attorneys, and legal materials, faced by thousands of immigrants seeking asylum or pursuing legitimate claims to legal residency.

"What's happening to immigrants in detention should disturb all of us," said ACLU/SC staff attorney Ranjana Natarajan. "People seeking America's protection from torture and persecution deserve a fair hearing and respect for their basic rights."

Date

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 12:00am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Reform

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Southern California RSS