This case concerns Plaintiff Alison Kareem’s facial and/or as applied constitutional challenge to “ballot selfie” laws, a categorization of long-standing prohibitions on displaying election ballots. With fingertip access to smartphone cameras, voters can take pictures of their completed ballots and immediately post them on social media sites. This action and the statutes come under review.
Kareem asserted that the laws did not satisfy the requisite level of scrutiny and are overbroad.
Plaintiff contested the Court’s ability to consider the report of Dr. E. Scott Adler, the State’s expert, arguing that it is not admissible and did not satisfy the Daubert factors.
Political Science Expert Witness
Prof. E. Scott Adler received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University in 1996, and has been teaching in the Department of Political Science at the University of Colorado Boulder since 1996. Adler’s specialty is American politics, with a focus on the U.S. Congress, congressional organization and reform, elections, and constituencies. Since 1992, he has taught general courses in American politics, including the history, administration, and implications of elections and voting.
Discussion by the Court
According to Adler, protecting the secrecy of the individual vote has been a central tenet of electoral law in nearly every state in the U.S. for well over a century. The long-held importance placed on election ballot secrecy in democracies has been motivated by three primary aims: protecting the right to privacy of personal political beliefs; discouraging the use of coercion against voters; and preventing vote buying.
Adler also clarified that employer-induced political activity is relatively common in contemporary America.
Plaintiff contended that the report reflected Adler’s personal opinions; relied on anecdotal evidence; is not supported by “legitimate methodology;” has not been peer reviewed; and failed to consider other potential causes or remedies.
Adler draws from a range of historical sources and contemporary research related to election privacy and integrity, which is sufficiently more than anecdotal evidence.
The Court found that his methodology is an accepted approach in the field of political science, which reliably supports his opinions.
Held
The Court did not discount or exclude Dr. E. Scott Adler’s expert report.
Key Takeaway
In making such determinations, courts consider a non-exhaustive list, known as the Daubert factors, which include testing, peer review, publication, known or potential error rates, and “general acceptance within a relevant scientific community.”
But the Daubert factors are not a checklist, and the reliability inquiry can depend on “the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Kareem V. Cuyahoga County Board Of Elections |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv2457 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Ohio Northern |
| Order Date: | June 03, 2026 |
Leave a Reply