Vote in local election, and maybe win $25,000. Is this even legal?

[davidm]

Editorial: Vote, and win $25,000: It's a losing idea

Frustrated by the appallingly low turnout in local elections, the nonprofit Southwest Voter Registration Education Project is planning a cash lottery — or voteria — to get voters to the polls for the Los Angeles Board of Education District 5 race. Anyone who legitimately casts a ballot in the May 19 contest between incumbent Bennett Kayser and challenger Ref Rodriguez will be automatically entered into the drawing. After the election is certified, the group will randomly select one person from the voting pool.

The winner gets $25,000.

I suppose it could be argued that this is no different from spending $25,000 on GOTV efforts, but it seems a little too close to bribery (although it doesn’t say “vote for Joe and win”, just “vote and win”).

Is it even legal? It’s a local school board election. Does that mean only local, and possibly state, laws are in effect?

[Grumman]

If the lottery is funded by a party unaffiliated with any of the candidates, and you are in the running regardless of who you vote for, it is unlikely to cause the problems that make bribery bad. In my country we basically have the same system, implemented on the opposite side: if you don’t vote, you lose money.

[Whack-a-Mole]

A quick look suggests it is illegal to pay people (or compensate them in any way) in federal elections but it is legal in some states for local elections (California being one of them it would seem).

[davidm]

@Grumman

If the lottery is funded by a party unaffiliated with any of the candidates, and you are in the running regardless of who you vote for, it is unlikely to cause the problems that make bribery bad. In my country we basically have the same system, implemented on the opposite side: if you don’t vote, you lose money.

The organization doing this historically has worked to specifically increase Latino turnout, so the argument is being made that it’s specifically targeting a group that will vote for the Latino candidate.

However that argument is now largely moot. It is now being reported at a national level so it’s hard to argue that only local Latino’s will know about it.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

If it doesn’t come out that the winner voted for Kayser, I have a feeling there’s going to be an effort to loot for a law they’re violating.

I agree with Grumman that the group doesn’t seem to be doing anything wrong, but that’s not the same as not doing anything illegal.

[septimus]

Even if the lottery is known to everyone, the terms and advertising can be structured to appeal to a specific demographic. Sounds very iffy to me.

[off-topic]
Where I live in rural Thailand, much of the citizenry is paid about a day’s wages to vote (for a specified candidate) in general elections. (Please keep this in mind next time our military junta is accused of not allowing “democratic” elections.) Elite Bangkokians often accuse rural voters of ignorance for accepting the money, but what would happen in U.S. if candidates could pay, say $100 each to voters without prosecution? I think many or most low-income voters would accept the money, especially if, as Thais do, they rationalize that they might have voted for that candidate anyway.

I’ve always thought it would be more efficient to just bypass the electorate and sell Thailand’s Parliament to the highest bidder! The way America’s “democracy” is heading, I almost wonder if that might have merit in U.S. as well. :eek: