The posted notice states: “CELL PHONES CAN ONLY BE USED FOR A BALLOT SELFIE.” It cites Kentucky Attorney General Opinion 16-007 and 31 KAR 4:170(2).
The cited authorities do not appear to say that.
Kentucky law clearly restricts certain conduct inside a voting room. But the sources printed on the sign do not, on their face, create a blanket rule saying every cellphone use is prohibited except taking a ballot selfie. They address specific concerns: recording voter identities or creating check-off lists, electioneering, ballot privacy, and the permitted ballot-selfie exception.
1. KRS 117.236 is about recording voter identities
KRS 117.236(2) prohibits election officers, voters, and other people lawfully inside the voting room from using paper, a telephone, a personal telecommunications device, a computer, or similar technology for the purpose of creating a check-off list or otherwise recording the identity of voters, subject to listed exceptions.
The statute regulates a particular use of a phone or other device. It does not contain language saying that possessing or using a cellphone for every other purpose is categorically forbidden.
2. 31 KAR 4:170(2) creates an exception for ballot selfies
31 KAR 4:170 is titled “Exceptions to prohibition on electioneering.” Section 2 says a voter's use of a personal telecommunications device to record or transmit an image of the voter's own likeness and ballot is not electioneering when the listed conditions are followed.
That tells voters that a ballot selfie can be lawful. It does not expressly say that a ballot selfie is the only lawful use of a cellphone in the voting room.
3. OAG 16-007 cuts against reading the statutes as a blanket device ban
Attorney General Opinion 16-007 concluded that KRS 117.235 and KRS 117.236 do not prohibit a voter from taking a ballot selfie. In reaching that conclusion, the opinion emphasized that KRS 117.236 targets use of a device to create a check-off list or record the identity of other voters.
The opinion also observed that, if the General Assembly intended to broadly prohibit photographic or electronic monitoring devices in the voting room, it could have used clear language doing so, as other states have.
The Attorney General's reasoning is difficult to square with treating these same provisions as though they themselves establish an across-the-board “no cellphone use except ballot selfies” rule.
4. Kentucky's current 2026 election guide uses narrower language
The Kentucky State Board of Elections' 2026 General Election Officer Guide, updated August 17, 2026, separates several different rules instead of announcing one blanket cellphone prohibition.
What is clearly restricted?
Nothing about this issue means a polling place is a free-for-all for recording. Kentucky law and election guidance protect voter privacy and the orderly voting process.
So what is CAP's finding?
Based on the Kentucky authorities reviewed so far, CAP has not found language in KRS 117.236, 31 KAR 4:170(2), or OAG 16-007 that supports the categorical statement that a cellphone “can ONLY be used for a ballot selfie.” Those authorities regulate specific conduct and expressly permit ballot selfies; they do not textually state that every other cellphone use is prohibited.
That does not by itself prove the Boyle County notice is unlawful. Local election officials may be relying on another statute, regulation, State Board directive, or other legal authority that is not printed on the sign. If so, CAP's question is simple: what is that authority?
CAP welcomes a citation to any current Kentucky statute, administrative regulation, court decision, Attorney General opinion, or State Board of Elections directive that specifically establishes the broader “only for a ballot selfie” rule.
A note about the First Amendment
OAG 16-007 discusses earlier Kentucky Attorney General guidance concerning news-media access and First Amendment concerns in the voting room. There may be additional constitutional questions surrounding an overly broad recording restriction. CAP does not need to resolve those broader constitutional issues to make the narrower point here: the authorities cited on the sign do not themselves use the blanket “ONLY” language.