But I can't. You'll have to take my word for it on faith. You see, taking a photograph of your ballot is illegal in the State of New York.

Under NY Election Law 17-130(10), the state has interpreted a law that prohibits showing one's "ballot after it is prepared for voting, to any person so as to reveal the contents, or solicits a voter to show the same" to include taking a selfie of one's ballot. Violations of this law are considered criminal misdemeanors with a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison.

NY Election Law 17-130(10) was first enacted 126 years ago in the late 19th century, which is why it makes no reference to photographs, or digital imaging using 21st century mobile devices such as cell phones with cameras. It was known as part of the "Australian ballot reforms" because of the common practice in Australia to require employees to show their ballots to their employer before casting their vote. In other words, it is an outdated law, not originally intended to cover the ubiquitous present day use of electronic devices to photograph anything and everything and post those images online.

Here is Federal Court Judge Kevin Castel 's justification for allowing this infringement on my right to free expression under the First Amendment.

“Selfies and smartphone cameras have been prevalent since 2007. A last-minute, judicially-imposed change in the protocol at 5,300 polling places would be a recipe for delays and a disorderly election, as well-intentioned voters either took the perfectly posed selfie or struggled with their rarely-used smartphone camera. This would not be in the public interest, a hurdle that all preliminary injunctions must cross.” [...] “Without the statute, employers, unions, and religious groups could encourage their members to upload images of their marked ballots to a single location to prove their commitment to the designated candidate. Those who declined to post a selfie could be swiftly outed and subjected to retaliation. This not-so-subtle form of voter intimidation is squarely within the zone of the statute’s intended reach.

I'll let you be the judge of how high the bullshit meter goes up for that claim.

For your information, when reviewing a law that infringes on one's rights under the First amendment, the usual standard of review in a 1st amendment case where the state law imposes a content based restriction on free speech (i.e., one where "the reason for the regulation is based on the content of the message") is the "strict scrutiny" test. To meet its burden under the strict scrutiny standard, the state must show two things:

1. Does the regulation further a compelling governmental interest?

2. Are the means used narrowly tailored to accomplish that governmental interest?

The "strict scrutiny" standard was the one used by a Federal Judge in New Hampshire to invalidate that state's similar ban on photographing or making a digital image of one's ballot. There Judge Sandra Lynch (presumably no relation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch) ruled that the state's interest "to prevent situations in which voters could be coerced into providing proof that they voted in a particular way, and thus as a means to prevent vote-coercion or vote-buying" was bull shit. Well, that wasn't what she actually said in her opinion, but that's what it amounted to:

Digital photography, the internet, and social media are not unknown quantities -- they have been ubiquitous for several election cycles, without being shown to have the effect of furthering vote buying or voter intimidation. As the plaintiffs note, "small cameras" and digital photography "have been in use for at least 15 years," and New Hampshire cannot identify a single complaint of vote buying or intimidation related to a voter's publishing a photograph of a marked ballot during that period.

New York essentially based justifying a ban on "ballot selfies" on the same argument made by New Hampshire. Specifically, New York claimed that the reason for the law was to prevent voter intimidation and bribery by unions, businesses, religious groups and so forth. Evidence that any group has ever taken action in New York to "coerce or bribe" voters to take "ballot selfies" was not presented at the hearing before the federal court. It would thus seem to be a slam dunk winner for the plaintiffs in the case.

However, unlike Judge Lynch, Judge Castel, for reasons that I find remarkably unconvincing, chose to review the New York law banning "ballot selfies" under the "rational basis" standard. The rational basis test only requires the state to show is that its justification for a law infringing on the First Amendment is "reasonable." No evidence of whether the law works to protect a governmental or public interest need be presented, only that the reasonable possibility that the law works to benefit the public by denying the right to freedom of expression.

As you can imagine, the rational basis test is a very low bar to meet. Indeed, the government almost always wins when the "rational basis" test is applied, since you only need to say that it is reasonable to assume your rationale for prohibiting free speech might exist and thus the law is reasonable. And that is what Judge Castel did. He just assumed taking selfies of one's ballot would result in chaos at the voting precincts. He also made this ridiculously laughable statement as to why banning selfies of one's ballot is a reasonable thing to do to prevent voter intimidation:

Because of the statute, those who would engage in ballot policing, for the purpose of bribery or to enforce orthodoxy among members of a group, whether members of union, employees of a company, or members of a religious group, have longed been deprived of an essential tool for success.[2] The absence of recent evidence of this kind of voter bribery or intimidation does not mean that the motivation to engage in such conduct no longer exists. Rather, it is consistent with the continued effectiveness of the New York statute.

So, instead of allowing New Yorkers to take selfies of their ballots unimpeded by fear of arrest, Judge Castel chose to enforce a 19th century law and turn poll workers into junior law enforcement officials, causing them to waste their valuable time and resources watching all the voters to make sure none of them takes a picture with their smart phones showing how they voted. Talk about the potential for causing chaos. All it will take is for one over-zealous poll worker to call the police to arrest a voter who photographed their ballot to frighten, confuse and outrage those waiting in line to vote. Not to mention the chilling effect it would have on anyone who took a ballot selfie without being discovered by the poll workers.

But hey it must be worth it to deny my fellow New Yorkers and I our freedom of expression, because - reasons. You know, one of the so-called freedoms our men and women in the military are fighting to protect by bombing brown people in the Middle East.

So, in lieu of my own ballot, here is a image from my local board of elections (cropped to show only those races where the Green Party was on the ballot) of what my ballot looked like before I filled in the little ovals with a black felt tipped pen. You'll just have to imagine they were properly blacked out for the Green Party candidates on the ballot, Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka (US Pres. & VP, respectively) and Robin Laverne Wilson (US Senate-NY). Just like I'll have to imagine that my vote for them will be accurately counted.