Court Prevents Videotaping of Voters and Other Activities

On Election Day 2024, the ACLU of Michigan filed a suit against unidentified defendants, asserting they were engaged in activities aimed at intimidating and deterring voters from participating in the election. The organization provided affidavits from several Michigan residents who recounted instances of intimidation at various polling locations in Oakland County. Among those testimonies was that of poll watcher Raime, who reported observing a trio of men filming voters and poll workers at Derby Middle School in Birmingham. The men were described as wearing provocative attire, including a baseball cap with a confrontational message. Despite being informed by Raimi that filming voters was not allowed, the men insisted that their actions were protected under their First Amendment rights. This behavior was corroborated by eyewitness accounts of the men blocking families from leaving the polling site and attempting to provoke negative responses from voters.

Along with Raimi’s testimony, voter Ago shared a similar distressing experience at the Oakland Schools Technical Campus in Royal Oak. She reported being approached by masked individuals recording her as she attempted to vote. Despite efforts from poll workers to ensure the filmers left, they maintained that they were media representatives entitled to record. When one of the masked men refused to back away after she sought privacy while voting, Ago felt intimidated and ultimately decided to step away from the situation. After casting her ballot, she observed that the intimidating individuals remained present outside the polling place, indicating ongoing obstruction and distress at that location.

Feldberg, another voter, experienced additional harassment at the First Presbyterian Church in Birmingham. She described being approached by a group of individuals wearing masks. They were filming voters and using selfie sticks to invade personal space within polling areas. Feldberg articulated that the men and women were loud, effectively blocking the entrance as voters tried to enter and exit the polling room. After voting, she felt compelled to report her discomfort to a poll worker, who informed her that the police had been called to address the situation. Despite the police being present, they determined that filming voters was not illegal, citing the individuals’ right to free speech in a public place, showcasing the tenuous balance between free expression and voter privacy.

The ACLU’s Executive Director, Khogali, underscored the troubling pattern of harassment, indicating their organization had received multiple reports from both voters and poll workers about a group of six individuals systematically visiting various polling locations, filming voters against their will, and creating a hostile environment. Some voters expressed significant anxiety, choosing alternative exits to evade the aggressive filming. As a result of the disturbances, ACLU resources that could have gone toward traditional Election Day services were redirected to address the voter intimidation incidents, highlighting the strain on civil rights organizations during critical electoral periods.

Despite the urgency of the situation and the alarming reports, the court only provided a cursory analysis in response to the ACLU’s claims, issuing an order for the defendants to cease their intimidating activities. This ruling prohibited them from filming voters, coming within a designated distance of polling entrances, and engaging in other harassment tactics that could escalate to violence. However, the defendants did not submit any legal papers challenging the ACLU’s allegations, raising questions about their awareness of the court proceedings and their ability to present a defense. The ACLU later dismissed the case a day after the election, as the legal ramifications diminished once voting concluded, leaving many worrying about the precedent established during this election.

In the broader context of First Amendment rights, the case raises complex issues regarding public filming, particularly concerning private citizens versus public officials. Prior court decisions have generally upheld the right to record in public spaces, but there remains ambiguity about the limits of such activities in specific situations like polling places. While Michigan law restricts electioneering within a certain perimeter of polling locations, the applicability of this law to filming has not been definitively resolved in this case, underscoring the nuances and ongoing challenges surrounding voter privacy and free speech on Election Day.

Ultimately, the events of Election Day 2024 in Michigan reflect serious concerns over voter intimidation and the balance of rights in public spaces during critical democratic processes. The ACLU’s intervention emphasizes the need for vigilance in protecting voters from hostile encounters and ensuring they can exercise their right to vote without fear or harassment. As discussions continue about the implications of the First Amendment in electoral contexts, these experiences highlight the precarious situation facing voters and the importance of safeguarding civil rights during elections.