The Volokh Conspiracy - No En Banc Rehearing as to First Amendment Right To Create Vote Swap Site:

The Ninth Circuit has refused to rehear en banc its earlier decision upholding a First Amendment right to create a vote swap site.

For more on why I think vote-swapping can't be easily equated with criminalizable vote-buying (an argument made by the dissent from denial of en banc), see here and here. A short excerpt:

A legislator promising to vote a particular way if another legislator votes a particular way: ordinary log-rolling. [Trading votes for votes in the legislature is thus seen as vastly different from trading votes for money.]

A legislator promising to vote a particular way if voters elect him: ordinary and constitutionally protected (Brown v. Hartlage) campaign promises.

Voters promising to vote for a legislator if the legislator promises to vote a particular way: the example [given here], which I think is quite proper.

Voters promising to vote a particular way if other voters promise to vote a particular way: that's voteswap.com, and it seems to me hard to see why it should be a crime when the others are permissible and even constitutionally protected. If legislator-legislator, legislator-voter, and voter-legislator deals are permitted, why not voter-voter deals?

	[Eugene Volokh, March 13, 2008 at 4:26pm] Trackbacks No En Banc Rehearing as to First Amendment Right To Create Vote Swap Site: The Ninth Circuit has refused to rehear en banc its earlier decision upholding a First Amendment right to create a vote swap site. For more on why I think vote-swapping can't be easily equated with criminalizable vote-buying (an argument made by the dissent from denial of en banc), see here and here. A short excerpt: A legislator promising to vote a particular way if another legislator votes a particular way: ordinary log-rolling. [Trading votes for votes in the legislature is thus seen as vastly different from trading votes for money.] A legislator promising to vote a particular way if voters elect him: ordinary and constitutionally protected (Brown v. Hartlage) campaign promises. Voters promising to vote for a legislator if the legislator promises to vote a particular way: the example [given here], which I think is quite proper. Voters promising to vote a particular way if other voters promise to vote a particular way: that's voteswap.com, and it seems to me hard to see why it should be a crime when the others are permissible and even constitutionally protected. If legislator-legislator, legislator-voter, and voter-legislator deals are permitted, why not voter-voter deals? Related Posts (on one page): No En Banc Rehearing as to First Amendment Right To Create Vote Swap Site: Careful With Those Assumptions: One More Vote-Swapping Example: Bribe or Permissible Political Deal? First Amendment Right To Create Vote Swap Site: