227 of his recently-deceased dog, “Akira,” as a write-in candidate. He took a photograph of his ballot on his phone while in the ballot booth. He later posted the photograph on Facebook, writing in part, “Because all of the candidates SUCK, I did a write-in of Akira/...” Doc. No. 19-20 at 2. Brodeur called Langlois after the election and explained that he was being investigated for posting his ballot on social media. Because Langlois was unaware of RSA 659:35, I, he initially thought Brodeur’s call was a “joke.” Doc. No. 18-1 at 12. Brandon Ross, the third plaintiff, voted in Manchester, where he was a candidate for the New Hampshire House of Representatives. With his phone, Ross took a photograph of his marked ballot, which reflected his vote for himself and other Republican candidates. He took the picture to keep a record of his vote and to preserve the opportunity to show his marked ballot to friends. He was aware of RSA 659:35, I when he took the photograph, and he did not immediately publish it because of the law’s penalties. After learning that the Attorney General’s Office was investigating voters for violating RSA 659:35, I, on September 19, 2014, Ross posted the photograph of his marked ballot on Facebook with the text “Come at me, bro.” Doc. No. 19-22 at 2. Representative Horrigan, the sponsor of the bill to amend RSA 659:35, filed an election law complaint, which triggered an investigation of Ross by the Attorney General’s Office. 6. The plaintiffs argue that the new law is unconstitutional in all of its applications ��and thus, is facially invalid—for the same reasons that it cannot be constitutionally applied to them. In response, the Secretary claims only that the plaintiffs' claims should be rejected because the new law can be constitutionally applied to everyone, including the plaintiffs. He does not argue that the law can be proper- D. Procedural History On October 31, 2014, Rideout, Langlois, and Ross filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of RSA 659:35. They requested declarations that the new law is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional- as applied to the plaintiffs. Doc. No. 1 at 20-21, They also sought an injunction to prohibit the state from enforcing RSA 659:35,1. Id. at 21. On November 11, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Ten days later, the parties agreed to an expedited discovery schedule in order to allow the issue to be decided on the merits rather than on a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Fed,R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2) (authorizing court to consolidate preliminary injunction hearing and trial). The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. See Doc. Nos. 18, 22. Both parties agree that there is no need for a trial because none of the material facts are in dispute.6 Doc. No. 29 at 2. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This case will be resolved on cross motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the mbvant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The evidence submitted in support of the motion must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable ly invoked in certain applications even if it cannot be constitutionally ápplied to the plaintiffs. Thus, I accept the plaintiffs’ contention that this is an appropriate case for a facial challenge to the statute’s constitutionality. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 472-73, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (describing standard for facial challenge based on First Amendment grounds).