Get the Feed
|
D I S P A T C H E S | campaign 2000
When a Personal Vote Isn’t Personal ACLU, National Voting Rights Institute challenge vote-swap decision in court 11.02.00 | With five days to go before the election, Web sites that match voters sympathetic to both Ralph Nader and Al Gore are at the center of a legal battle that raises a fundamental question: Who controls how an individual decides to vote? The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Voting Rights Institute are heading to court today to ask a California judge to permit Web sites that promote strategic voting to continue operating as a clearinghouse for voters. California Secretary of State Bill Jones informed the creators of VoteSwap2000.com on Monday that their site was in violation of California election code section 18521 and 18522 - which prohibit using money, gifts, loans or "other valuable consideration" to induce a person to vote or refrain from voting - and penal code section 182, criminal conspiracy. Each offense is a felony that carries a maximum prison sentence of three years.
The Los Angeles-based VoteSwap2000.com shut down Monday night - less than one week after it launched. Votexchange2000.com, based in Stanford, voluntarily did the same, though it did not receive notification. Both sites featured a database that matched Nader supporters living in states where George W. Bush has a comfortable lead with Gore supporters in states too close to call. The idea was that once voters are paired, they can decide between themselves if they want to strategically cast their votes so Gore gains support in key states, and Nader obtains the 5 percent of the popular vote he needs for federal election funds in 2004. At issue is whether this strategic consideration is being used to procure votes, and whether the so-called vote swap constitutes a quid pro quo contract. Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said Wednesday night that Jones’ decision was “an attempt to chill free speech.” They are seeking a temporary restraining order against Jones and asking for emergency relief. The request will be filed on behalf of Votexchange2000.com, as well as the student-run Democratic Club of UCLA and a number of individuals who want to use the Internet to talk about politics and use this Web site. “If we thought it was illegal we never would have done it,” said Jim Cody, 41, a freelance Web designer and co-creator of VoteSwap2000.com. Cody said he and his partner were still debating whether to join the legal proceedings. Regardless of what happens to the Web sites, Cody said he is pleased they have attracted enough attention to generate a nationwide discussion on how voters can both elect Gore and aid the Green Party. Approximately 5,000 voters had been matched at VoteSwap2000.com as of Monday night, he said. If the injunction is granted, Rosenbaum said Votexchange.com would re-launch “in a nanosecond.” “The Internet is the town hall for the new millennium to discuss politics. The secretary of state is shutting the gates to that town hall and the people who are involved in this Web site who want to talk about politics and develop effective political strategies,” Rosenbaum said. “Does anyone think anyone could enforce these pledges? Are they going to send the militia into the voting booths?” John Bonifaz, director of the National Voting Rights Institute, said, “This is an attempt by ordinary citizens to connect citizens in some states with citizens in other states with similar political views. It’s up to them to engage in whatever conversation they want to have.” Alfie Charles, a spokesman for Secretary of State Jones, said VoteSwap2000.com offered more than a place to meet and discuss strategic voting. “Our position is each voter gets one vote that he or she has to use himself or herself," he explained. "You can’t trade a dollar for a vote, you can’t trade a job for a vote and you can’t trade a vote for a vote.” “We’ve talked to coordinators of some sites who are just encouraging [voters] to vote in one state for one candidate and those in another state to vote for the other candidate. Those types are legal,” Charles continued. “What [VoteSwap2000.com] encourages is a contract between individuals. It’s a quid pro quo that violates the statute in California.” Jamin Raskin, the American University law professor whose recent article in Slate on pairing voters inspired many of the Web sites, said that if “vote trading” is illegal in California, ‘there are a lot of legislators in Sacramento who are facing prosecution right now.” “Beyond that, the political dialogue taking place at the national level among Gore and Nader supporters is not vote trading, but an exchange of views on how to best approach the election from a strategic perspective. It’s not binding,” Raskin said, adding, “It doesn’t surprise me that a Republican would consider a dialogue among Greens and Democrats a threatening development.” Charles said the Web sites should not be compared to negotiations between legislators. “It’s not a deal where political compromises are reached in the voting process,” he said. “Each individual has one vote ” they’re not allowed to let others influence their vote in exchange for anything of value.” Charles said the secretary of state’s goal was to protect the integrity of the election process, not to prosecute individuals who ‘made an honest mistake.” Jones isn’t the only secretary of state to take action. Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer e-mailed VoteSwap2000.com on Monday, asking them to “cease and desist” vote-swapping activities in the state of Minnesota. (They already had.) Kiffmeyer said yesterday the Web site violated Minnesota election law prohibiting bribery or solicitation to induce voters to vote a certain way. She said any site operating in a similar fashion would also be contacted. “We as election officials haven’t had to consider such things as the marketing of the voting mechanism on the Internet,” said Kiffmeyer. “It does not help anybody in favor of Internet voting if this is how the tool is going to be used.” Numerous other Web sites are continuing to take pledges from voters, but most are keeping track only of the aggregate number of voters who state they will cast their vote strategically. Some site developers said they were alarmed by Jones’ decision in California, but felt confident that their sites did not violate any laws. Jeff Winchell, 39, of Seattle, who launched Winchell.com/NaderTrader last week and tallies vote pledges for Gore and Nader, said he discussed the definition of “value” with his attorney and believed he was in the clear. But he questioned whether political parties were influencing votes. “Campaign buttons - is that something of value?” asked Winchell. Vinh Pham, a 24-year-old computer professional in California who developed VoteExchange.com, said the site serves as a “political dating service.” Users providing information about their voting preference and state are matched with other users. More than 1,800 names were registered as of Thursday morning. The site refers to itself as a “broker of communication.” One of the newest entries is WinWinCampaign.org, which launched Tuesday. The site is the brainchild of Lucia Gill Case, a former high school history teacher from Rhode Island. “I just felt frustrated - I saw no reason why Nader couldn’t get 5 percent of the vote and Gore couldn’t be president,” she said. After discussing it with friends, the 36-year-old stay-at-home mom decided to launch WinWinCampaign.org with the help of a Liberty Concepts, a Philadelphia-based political web design firm, and San Francisco-based Tensa, a developer of online action tools. Depending upon their home state, users “pledge” to vote for either Nader or Gore. The site counted 1,113 pledges for Nader and 1035 for Gore as of this morning. The creators of the numerous Web sites have formed a support group of sorts. Many provide links to each other and keep each other apprised of legal inquiries. For example, Steve Yoder, a 37-year-old freelance writer in Washington, D.C., whose site VoteExchange.org was one of the first to launch (he jokingly described the bulletin board format as the “Model-T” of Nader/Gore Web sites), started directing users to the more technologically sophisticated VoteSwap2000.com. Now he points visitors to WinWinCampaign.org. Jeff Cardille, a 33-year-old grad student who created NaderTrader.org to explain the vote swapping process, said he doubted the California secretary of state’s decision would deter voters who found the idea appealing. “People will decide to vote based on their own beliefs and discussions with their friends and family,” he said.
Christine Cupaiuolo is editor of PopPolitics.com Discuss this article or start your own discussion on politics Related Sites |
