Support the Integrity of Elections

Collecting donations for U.S. troops is undeniably a very worthy cause. But when a Boy Scout troop placed donation boxes meant for that cause in 33 polling stations in Cambridge on Election Day, a Cambridge election official ordered the boxes to be removed. The problem? They were interpreted to violate rules against having political messages in a polling place.

The reaction has been vociferous. Fox News branded Cambridge’s decision as “unpatriotic” and “anti-American.” The decision, however, was made to protect the integrity of the election, and it was the right one.

The problem with the boxes has nothing to do with support or lack thereof for the troops, as it has been made out to be. The Boy Scouts had the best of intentions, and the donation boxes would be commendable in other circumstances. The real issue—and the only one actually up for debate—is whether or not the boxes constitute political messaging. They did, and removing the boxes was therefore a necessary decision.

The laws against political messages in polling places exist because the presence of any sort of advertising could unduly influence voters and disrupt the integrity of an election. Although the boxes were labeled to support the troops, it is simply a fact that, given the current situation, “the troops” are inextricably associated with the war in Iraq. While it is certainly possible to support the troops and not the war—many people do—the reality is that a donation box for the troops brings voters’ attention to the war in Iraq while they are in the polling booth. Indeed, psychological studies have shown that attitudes are dramatically affected by even small visual cues.

The problem isn’t that the boxes are themselves partisan, but that they single out a highly partisan issue and call attention to it. It is not hard to imagine that a voter who entered the polling place slightly undecided might vote one way when confronted with an “Iraq War” sign and oppositely if there were one reading “Stem Cells” or “Global Warming.”

Because of the potential for subtle influence—not for any reason relating to the troops themselves—the Boy Scouts’ boxes did not belong in Cambridge’s polling places. Donation boxes collecting money for any other cause, be it homelessness, uninsured children, or education, would be equally unacceptable.

One may argue that the war has nothing to do with municipal elections and thus the boxes should have been allowed, but that logic brings election officials into the dangerous practice of judging what messages are relevant to what elections. Eliminating political messages from polling places altogether sets a clearer standard that is less prone to selective censorship.

Election officials made the right decision to protect the integrity of the election, and it is deeply unfortunate that it has been misconstrued as an attack on the American troops.