Department of Economics t 303 492 8268

Jeffrey Zax f 303 492 8960

Professor of Economics jeffrey.zax@colorado.edu
256 UCB
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0256

14 March 2017

Jefferey Riester
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203

Dear Mr. Riester,

Thank you very much for meeting with me this past Thursday. I appreciated your
interest in my perspective regarding HB171014, "Election offenses committed by a
voter". I additionally appreciate the invitation to submit this letter, summarizing
that perspective.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held a hearing on
requests for preliminary injunctions against the ballot selfie prohibition in
November 2016 (Hill et al. v. Williams et al. and Harlos, et al. v. Morrissey, et al.). I
served as an expert witness for our Attorney General in defense of that prohibition.

In that capacity, I reviewed the scholarly research regarding the origins and impacts
of prohibitions against the display of completed ballots. This research convinced me
that ballot privacy is an essential component of the array of laws that protects ballot
secrecy and, ultimately, the integrity of the voting process.

Extensive vote buying and voter intimidation occur in many contemporary
countries. They have occurred in the past in the United States as well. High degrees
of voting verifiability have been a common characteristic in all of these instances.

The secret ballot was adopted for the express purpose of discouraging vote fraud. It
has been an essential feature of contexts, such as the contemporary United States,
where vote buying and voter intimidation have been rare. Experience therefore
demonstrates that vote buying and voter intimidation will become more common if
ballot secrecy is weakened.

The historical experience has a simple economic explanation. When votes cannot be
verified, payments or coercion can obtain only the promise of a vote. That promise
has limited value.

As the capacity to verify voting choices improves, commitments to vote for specified
options become more credible. They are thus more valuable. Verifiability increases
the price that a voter can charge for their vote. It also increases the return to



individuals who wish to influence the votes of others, either through purchase or
coercion.

Ballot selfies provide irrefutable verification of voter choices. Moreover, the absence
of a selfie is nearly as informative as the selfie itself. Almost everyone has a cell
phone with selfie capacity. Therefore, the refusal to provide a selfie can be reliably
interpreted as indicating that votes were cast in opposition to the preferences of
whoever has requested the selfie. Ballot selfies turn vote selling and voter
intimidation from gambles into guarantees.

Other societal characteristics also influence the prevalence of vote fraud. For
example, research demonstrates that vote buying and voter intimidation are more
common in environments characterized by greater economic inequality. Economic
inequality in the United States has increased, by any measure, over the past thirty
years. Inequality was a central theme in the most recent national elections.

In addition, vote fraud is more common in environments characterized by reduced
trust in the electoral process. This process is the subject of increasing suspicion in
the United States. State legislatures throughout our country have responded to
perceptions or fears of voter fraud with increasingly restrictive voting laws. Our
President has asserted that several million votes were cast fraudulently in the
Presidential election of this past November.

Inequality and the erosion of faith in the electoral system have been characteristics
of American society for some time. More recent changes in our society also
encourage vote fraud. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal
Trade expands the extent to which employers, unions and other associations can
express their collective political views. Employees and members may experience
these expressions as persuasive or even coercive in intent.

A society in which inequality erodes the implicit social contract that binds us
together, where suspicion of the electoral process undermines the norm of lawful
participation, and where employers can aggressively recruit employees in support
of their political views is already too susceptible to vote fraud. In this context,
further threats to the secrecy of the ballot would be especially potent
encouragements for vote selling and voter intimidation.

The potential damage that can be inflicted on our electoral system through vote
selling and voter intimidation is substantial. For example, in the most recent
presidential election, Donald Trump won the popular vote in Michigan by 10,704
votes. If votes could be bought for, as an example, $100 each, that volume of votes
would cost slightly more than one million dollars. According to the Federal Election
Commission, more than one billion dollars was spent on this election. In that



context, vote purchases of the magnitude necessary to affect the Michigan result
would represent a trivial expense.

In Colorado Congressional elections, 10,000 votes would typically represent 2% to
3% of turnout. In competitive races, these many votes would be decisive. While one
million dollars is a much larger sum in comparison to what would typically be spent,
the Federal Election Commission reports that total spending on Colorado
Congressional races in 2016 was still $17,207,734. If races were more competitive,
that sum would surely be greater. The capacity for significant vote purchasing
would certainly exist. With the demise of ballot secrecy, the urge to exercise that
capacity would be much harder to resist.

The benefits of ballot selfies are comparatively small. Currently, voters may
represent their choices in any way other than revealing the voted ballot, itself. The
revelation of that ballot would, at best, make a minor contribution to the social
experience of sharing political activity. However, it would obliterate ballot secrecy.

In sum, the secret ballot is central to the integrity of our electoral system. Ballot
secrecy is increasingly compromised. With legal ballot selfies, that compromise
would be complete. Legal ballot selfies would convert vote buying and voter
intimidation from bets into sure things.

Yours,

Jeffrey Zax
Professor of Economics
Associate Chair, Undergraduate Program
University of Colorado Boulder