性视界传媒

QUESTION: Recently, I voted at the Greggton location. There性视界传媒檚 a sign that says no cell phones in the publicly accessible area of the voting area.

I was wondering why that policy exists when there is a constitutional right to not only have a cell phone on but to record in publicly accessible areas that are not restricted.

To my understanding that性视界传媒檚 a violation of my constitutional rights.

ANSWER: I attached a photo to the online version of this column of the signs at that polling location that I took after the polling location had closed. The signs are not just someone性视界传媒檚 preference. This is a state law that was added to the Texas Election Code by the Legislature in 2007. Here性视界传媒檚 what it says:

性视界传媒�(a) A person may not use a wireless communication device within 100 feet of a voting station.

(b) A person may not use any mechanical or electronic means of recording images or sound within 100 feet of a voting station.

(c) The presiding judge may require a person who violates this section to turn off the device or to leave the polling place.

(d) This section does not apply to:

(1) an election officer in conducting the officer性视界传媒檚 official duties;

(2) the use of election equipment necessary for the conduct of the election; or

(3) a person who is employed at the location in which a polling place is located while the person is acting in the course of the person性视界传媒檚 employment.

Other states have similar laws, and based on a conversation I had with our Texas Secretary of State性视界传媒檚 Office and reading about other state性视界传媒檚 laws, they性视界传媒檙e designed to protect voter privacy and the secret ballot at the heart of our elections.

It性视界传媒檚 also supposed to help with election integrity and fight voter intimidation. (For instance, a person who is selling his or her vote couldn性视界传媒檛 take a picture of the ballot to prove voting as agreed to. Also, someone性视界传媒檚 employer or a union leader, for example, couldn性视界传媒檛 use those electronic devices to force or intimidate people to vote the way they want them to.)

All that said, there have been court cases in other states about this issue. The Federal Judicial Center, the research and education agency of the U.S. judicial branch, provides this information on its website about some of those cases:

性视界传媒淧roscriptions Against Ballot Selfies: Hill v. Williams (1:16-cv-2627) and Harlos v. Morrissey (1:16-cv-2649) (Christine M. Arguello, D. Colo.), Silberberg v. Board of Elections (P. Kevin Castel, S.D.N.Y. 1:16-cv-8336), and ACLU of Northern California v. Padilla (William Alsup, N.D. Cal. 3:16-cv-6287)

性视界传媒淔rom eight to fifteen days before the 2016 general election, federal actions in three states sought relief from proscriptions on 性视界传媒榖allot selfies性视界传媒� 性视界传媒� photographs of ballots taken by voters completing them. These actions and previous actions in three other states pitted freedom of expression against the secret ballot. Some district and circuit judges favored freedom of expression; others favored the secret ballot.性视界传媒�

I did reach out to the ACLU of Texas to see if that organization had concerns about this issue in Texas. The organization declined to comment as it had not researched the issue.

I have pretty strong opinions about some issues in the Constitution, but I can性视界传媒檛 say I know enough about this issue to say what I believe, and it looks like there性视界传媒檚 disagreement among others as well.

Getting this changed would require getting the Legislature to change the law or filing a lawsuit, I believe.