In many electoral systems,
voters must register before they can cast a ballot. Unless civil data or an
actual civil registry is used as the basis for the State to compile the voters
list, registration is the joint responsibility of each voter and the electoral
administration or another agency or agencies.
The responsibility agency
provides the means for registration, but voters often must take some initiative
to register and, if possible, provide proof of their eligibility. (In the U.K., eligible
voters are obliged to register to vote, although – unlike in certain other
countries, such as Australia
– they are not as such obliged to cast a vote.)
To some extent, integrity
problems in voter registration occur in almost all electoral systems, not only in
emerging democracies. Integrity in voter registration is critical to free and
fair elections. It is facilitated by a well-designed process, monitored by
political parties and civil society and including enforcement measures.
To ensure integrity in voter
registration, the electoral management body must develop a registration system
that:
- does not unfairly exclude
certain segments of the population through eligibility requirements or
access to registration facilities;
- enables any qualified
person who wishes to register to do so; and
- produces an accurate,
reliable and up-to-date voters list.
Defining
Eligibility Requirements
The right to vote is one of
the foundations of a democratic system of government. However, it is usually
considered a privilege of citizenship and, as a result, every country has set
eligibility requirements for voting. The requirements generally include
citizenship (especially in national elections), a minimum age (widely
established as 18 years) and sometimes a specific residence requirement. Voters
residing abroad during elections are often placed in a separate category, so
that they can cast their votes in special ways (such as advance voting at
specified locations) or even (such as in Croatia)
vote in a separate constituency.
Sometimes certain citizens
lose their right to vote—for example, those who have been adjudicated
incompetent by a court; or criminals convicted of a serious offense (such as a
felony). It is considered best practice
for withdrawal of a citizen’s right to vote following a criminal conviction to
be subject to a special determination by the court during the sentencing
process, and that such withdrawal terminate automatically at a certain
time. In Europe and Eurasia, for example, the European Court of Human Rights
established under the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of
Europe has determined that a prisoner cannot be denied the right to vote unless
such a determination has validly been made.[1] As another example, in the United States serious
issues have arisen in recent elections regarding non-restoration of the rights
of convicts who have completed their terms of imprisonment and should no longer
be subject to restriction of their civil rights.
Electoral integrity may be at
risk if certain groups of citizens are prevented from registering by the
addition of discriminatory eligibility conditions based on race, language or
other social characteristics. The legal framework must clearly define the
eligibility requirements to safeguard fair and equal treatment for all
citizens.
Ensuring
that Eligible Citizens Can Register
Eligible citizens can vote
only if they have been registered. Ensuring that every citizen who wishes or is
eligible to register is able to do so is another integrity challenge. In
developing countries registration presents logistical problems, and in any system
there would be problems if eligible citizens try to register but cannot because
of limited access or administrative obstacles or error.
There are two fundamentally different
voter registration systems. Some systems use civil registry data as the basis
for the voters list, with eligible persons being registered by the State, as a
ministerial responsibility. For example, Denmark
uses its computerized national civil registry as the basis for producing a
computerized voters list. Ireland
uses a list of voters prepared annually by the county councils and county borough
corporations. Using civil registry data can reduce problems arising from
citizens’ varying ability to register and helps ensure that every eligible
citizen is registered to vote.
Other systems place the
responsibility for registration on citizens themselves. They register in either
a permanent registry (requiring one-time enrolment) or a periodic registry
(requiring re-enrolment at fixed intervals). A permanent registry is less
burdensome for voters but must be regularly updated to change the registration
status of voters who have moved residence or whose status has changed (e.g., as a result of death or
incapacity). With new technology, Canada
has found that keeping a permanent computerized list is less expensive,
time-consuming and labour-intensive than the previous system of registering
voters for each federal election.
Access to registration sites
may be a problem for voters. To reduce the danger of fraudulent registration,
some countries require voters to register in person. This requirement may prove
disproportionately hard for residents of rural or remote areas, or persons with
limited mobility.
On the other hand, certain
countries, such as the U.K., and in many jurisdictions in the U.S.,
permit materials pertaining to national elections to be delivered, collected
and submitted by third-party organizations, sometimes including political
parties themselves. In the U.K., such opportunities for fraud has sometimes
led to corrective legislation;[2] and
in the U.S.
issues have often been raised concerning the practices of organizations on both
sides of the partisan divide involved in voter registration drives. Various countries
have adopted special rules making voter registration easier. Some provisions
allow persons with a physical disability to register by proxy. In New
Zealand, for example, persons who have a
physical disability or are sick can ask someone else to fill out, date and sign
the voter registration application. The person providing this assistance must
be a registered voter and be given power of attorney.[3]
To make it easier for larger
numbers of voters to register, some countries allow registration by mail and
on-line. These methods potentially involve their own integrity problems.
There is usually a fixed
deadline for registration before election day; this helps electoral
administrators to determine the numbers of ballots needed and plan election
logistics. Such a deadline may also give rise to integrity issues, however.
Voters with access problems may find it difficult to register on time.
Some countries, such as Canada,
have addressed this issue by allowing voters to register on election day.
Others widely publicize the registration deadline to make citizens aware of it. Certain countries, like Romania,
permit voters’ names to be added to a “supplemental list” of voters at the
polling station. Other countries, such
as Croatia and other States that
emerged from the Former Yugoslavia,
permit citizens to seek registration certificates from the primary courts on
election day. And, in the U.S.,
Federal legislation provides that voters who are not registered (or whose
registration is challenged) may submit “tendered ballots” on election day,
which are counted subsequently if the voters’ eligibility to vote can be
confirmed.
All these measures help allow
for the registration of as many eligible voters as possible. For voters lists
to be accurate and reliable, however, additional safeguards are needed to
prevent fraud and guarantee that only eligible voters are registered.
The registration process produces
voter lists that customarily are made available for public inspection, either
on an ongoing basis or prior to an election. The publication of verifiable
voter lists is a measure that helps maintain voter confidence in the integrity
of the system. However, making private information public can raise privacy
issues. In the U.K.,
the data included in publicly-available voter lists is greatly limited in order
to prevent misuse of the lists.
[1] Hirst v the United Kingdom
(No 2),
[2005] ECHR 681, [2006]
42 EHHR 41
[2] See, e.g., U.K., Prevention of
Electoral Fraud Act (Northern
Ireland), 2002 Chapter 13
[3] Elections New Zealand,
Everything You Need to Know About Enrolling to Vote
