That’s so at least in Alaska and Washington, and perhaps elsewhere. From Alaska Statutes § 15.58.030:
(c) Each candidate for [President, Vice-President, Senator, Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Senator, or State Representative] is allowed one page of space in the [ballot] pamphlet for a photograph and statement….(f) A candidate’s photograph must be 5″ x 7″ in size and must have been taken within the past five years. The photograph must be limited to the head, neck, and shoulders of the candidate. All photographs shall be printed in black and white….
Rev. Code Wash. Ann. § 29A.32.031 imposes a similar requirement.
UPDATE: As many commenters have pointed out, this requirement is quite constitutional: The state is printing the ballot pamphlet, and it has substantial latitude to decide what to include in it. The exact scope of the latitude is not clear, and viewpoint-based restrictions and some subject-matter restrictions on the contents of the arguments might well be unconstitutional; but the requirement of a relatively current photograph strikes me as quite constitutional. I just thought that it was amusing, not that it was unconstitutional or even advice.
Chris Travers says:
I don’t see this as a truth-in-photo issue. More of a restriction on editorial guidelines relating to the voter information booklet published by the state.
January 11, 2010, 12:36 amOff Kilter says:
It’s not like they’re prohibiting the use of make-up, or even post-processing…
January 11, 2010, 2:29 amDavid Gleicher says:
This law is trying to prevent what I call the “Malcolm Wilson effect.” Every four years, Nelson Rockefeller was pictured with his lieutenant-governor teammate, Malcolm Wilson, in election posters throughout New York State. Then Rocky resigned, and a press conference was held to introduce Wilson as the new governor. Voters were shocked to see an old man who looked nothing like his poster. The picture must have been taken in the mid-1950s and the press conference was in 1973 (or so). At that moment, it was a foregone conclusion that Wilson would never win in 1974.
January 11, 2010, 4:02 amNickM says:
I always got a kick out of seeing early ’70s ties and hairstyles on official Congressional photos from the mid-1990s.
Nick
January 11, 2010, 5:42 amSoldier of fortune says:
Now they only need to include proof of natural born citizenship.
January 11, 2010, 10:25 amFub says:
Item by item:
Content neutral. State wil only print 5×7. Same space for everybody.
Not content neutral.
Not content neutral.
Content neutral (ie: state will only print B&W for everybody).
Of course, the state owns the printing press. I don’t know the First Amendment limits, if any, on state’s content censorship of material submitted by candidates for office. I suppose that at least some censorship which conflicted with other rights (such as refusing to publish pictures of anybody but whites, or blacks, or some other ethnic or racial characteristics a photograph would reveal) would at least stay in court.
But as an abstract question, what actual state interest is served by not publishing a candidate’s classical baby on a bearskin rug photo? How do these content restrictions prevent falsehood (or engender truth) in the publication?
Seems to me that a candidate who wanted to demonstrate his fundamental humanity, or even a metaphorical “I have nothing to hide” quality of honesty, might convey the message well by such a publication. No voter is likely to believe that the candidate is currently an infant, unless they’re unaware of the age requirements for the public office.
January 11, 2010, 11:42 amChris Travers says:
Is the purpose to provide expressive space or descriptive space regarding the photo?
If the candidate wants to send out flyers of baby pictures on a bearskin rug, more power to him/her. If those pictures are used as the basis for TV ads, more power to him/her. However, I am not sure if a voter information guide is the place for such things.
January 11, 2010, 12:05 pmShelbyC says:
I’d imagine the purpose of the photo in general is to help the voter recognize the candidate, no?
January 11, 2010, 12:39 pmhattio says:
ShelbyC has it exactly right. This is not a truth in advertising law, it’s a restriction on what you need to provide to be included in the STATE PRINTED booklet. It’s no more a truth in advertising law than a rule by a local newspaper limiting the length of a letter to the editor is a denial of free speech. You want to lie in your advertisement’s, you can. Trust me, I live in AK and hear the lying ads every 4 years.
January 11, 2010, 12:49 pmFub says:
I asking what the state interest in making the voter information guide “not the place for such things” actually is, or whether and where it has been coherently articulated.
In 2003 when California’s Governator was elected upon Davis’ recall, the ballot and the state published voter guide had 135 candidates, whose printed statements ranged all over the map. For instance, from one candidate’s statement:
That particular voter guide is available here (CA Secretary of State, PDF) in English, among various languages linked from here (same).
I’m wondering what the legal or constitutional difference is between such candidate statements and candidate photos.
January 11, 2010, 1:14 pmPintler says:
My vote would be to delete the photos altogether; it’s not supposed to be a beauty contest. Maybe that would end the hegemony of tall people with good hair :-).
January 11, 2010, 1:33 pmclickhere says:
Maybe we should require a ‘tale of the tape’ description like in boxing – bicep measurement, reach, fist size, etc. ;-)
January 11, 2010, 1:46 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Thank you for giving me the visual of Barbara Boxer in one of those televised weigh-ins, complete with entourage.
I will now attempt to wash my mind out with disinfectant.
January 11, 2010, 1:59 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Truth-in-Photographs Requirement Imposed by [State Election Law] Dating Services says:
[...] to Eugene’s post below, from ABC News (I can’t figure out how to do the cool strike-over in the title) … I [...]
January 11, 2010, 3:11 pmChris Travers says:
Suppose it were to be changed to something like:
Candidates may submit a photo measuring 5 inches by 7 inches and must truthfully submit information about when and where the photo was taken. The purpose of such photo is to provide an accurate representation of what the candidate currently looks like and should include only the head, sholders, and neck of the candidate. The state auditor’s office shall provide editorial guidelines designed to further this purpose.
The state auditor’s office would then be free to relax the restrictions or implement new ones.
January 11, 2010, 3:21 pmll says:
I guess that means it was ok to airbrush out Palin’s satanic horns.
January 11, 2010, 11:38 pmChris Travers says:
That’s why she wears glasses without rims made of horn. I thought it was because she was a maverick….. (Apologies to Swift Kids for Truth)
January 12, 2010, 12:06 amRico Laurent says:
I am a shy guy and have a hard time meeting woman when I go out. I have found online dating to be helpful, but you still need good dating tips and advice to be able to handle any situation. I liked what I read on here. Keep up the great work. On-line Dating Advice for the Alone Man
June 27, 2010, 9:57 am