Author: Kåre Vollan
There is no single, unified EMB in Norway. The administrative and legal responsibility for elections is divided, both in terms of decentralization from the national to the local level and between bodies at the central level. A single unified structure with a central body from which the local bodies take their powers does not exist. At the central level, the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (hereinafter called the Ministry) fulfils most of the core tasks of an EMB. However, there is also a National Electoral Board (Riksvalgstyret, NEB) with limited authorities, and Parliament has the final say in certifying — approving the election of — its own elected members.
The NEB and Parliament have roles only at parliamentary elections. Local elections are managed by the local authorities, under the supervision and partial instruction of the Ministry.
Elections in Norway
Elections are held to assemblies at three levels of administration:
- Parliament (Stortinget) at the national level;
- 18 County Assemblies (fylkesting); and
- 429 Municipal Councils (kommunestyrer).
The capital, Oslo, is both a county and a municipality, and the Municipal Council assumes the authority of both levels. (Elections to the Same Parliament (Sametinget), which is a representative assembly elected by the indigenous Same people according to a law of 1987 (Sameloven), fall outside the scope of this study.)
Of the 169 members of Parliament, 150 are elected as county representatives under a List PR system, while 19 are elected as members at large to compensatory seats that compensate for any deviation from a nationwide proportional result. The term of office for all elected assemblies is four years. The periods of office are staggered; county and municipal elections are held simultaneously two years after the parliamentary elections. None of the bodies can be dissolved, and there are no by-elections. Elections can therefore be planned a long time in advance.
Background
Norway has had an elected Parliament since 1814, which has been directly elected by voters since 1906. Suffrage has included all men from 1898 and women from 1913. Directly elected Municipal Councils were introduced in 1836 (with a limited voting right).
Election administration has never been regarded as anything different from other public services, and the conduct of elections has therefore been left to the regular administrative and elected bodies. Local and parliamentary elections have been conducted by the elected local authorities, assisted by the local administration.
Until 1985, the election authorities were the executive Boards of the Municipal Councils, elected under a PR system by the councils and consisted of Council members. They were the highest political board of the municipality, and were led by the mayor. The boards would in turn appoint polling station staff, using the municipal administration to assist them. They managed polling for all kinds of elections. For municipal elections, the boards issued the certificates confirming their election to the successful candidates.
County Electoral Boards were selected by proportional election by the County Council Assemblies. These would collect the protocols of the election results from the municipal executive boards for elections to the County Assemblies and Parliament, and issue certificates to the elected members of the County Assembly and Parliament.
At its first meeting, Parliament would approve the validity of the elections. Any complaints about the election would be adjudicated by the executive board for municipal elections, by the county electoral board for county assembly elections and by Parliament itself for parliamentary elections. For all elections, the Ministry would issue directives and instructions and supervise when needed.
In 1985 a new election law was adopted, which consolidated the provisions for elections at all three levels for the first time. Previously, there had been one law for parliamentary elections and one for the two local levels. The main change to the election administration was the introduction of a National Electoral Board (NEB). This body is appointed by the government, and by common practice (not law) has representatives from all parties that are represented in Parliament. The introduction of the NEB was not prompted by any identified need for an independent EMB. Rather, it arose from the need for a body to allocate the compensatory seats at the national level, which were introduced by this law. After this, the NEB certified the elected members of Parliament, even though Parliament maintained the final say over the validity of the elections in part or as a whole. The NEB was not given any overall authority to oversee or supervise the elections.
A further new election law was adopted in 2002. Despite proposals for drastic changes to the election administration, this law essentially represented a streamlining of the legal texts, although it introduced some important modifications to the system of representation and the conduct of elections. The most important change to the administration of elections was that the NEB was given the authority to adjudicate appeals on parliamentary elections raised at any level. For appeals regarding the right to vote, the Parliament is the final authority, but in any other case the NEB has final adjudicating powers (apart from any criminal proceedings against individuals). Parliament still makes the final decision on the validity of the election as such, and decides whether a repeat election is merited. At the municipal level, the Municipal Council can now either decide that the executive board should administer elections itself, or elect a separate Municipal Electoral Board. In the latter case, the political composition of the Electoral Board reflects the composition of the Municipal Council in the same way the composition of other commissions of the council does. Candidates for election might be serving as Electoral Board members, even if the municipality appointed a separate board.
The Legislative and Institutional Framework
Elections are regulated by the constitution and by the Election Law of 2002. The constitutional provisions relate only to parliamentary elections. They give the responsibility for conducting elections to the municipalities, and state that the keeping of electoral registers and the manner in which the polls are conducted shall be regulated by law. The constitution stipulates Parliament’s role in approving the credentials of its elected members, and gives it the power to determine appeals against decisions related to disputes regarding the right to vote.
Following further amendment in 2005, the Election Law defines the following election bodies:
- the Election Boards, elected by the Municipal Councils;
- the Polling Station Committees, appointed by the Municipal Councils or on their decision by the Election Board;
- the County Election Boards, elected by the County Assemblies; and
- the National Electoral Board, appointed by the government in years when there is a parliamentary election.
The first two bodies have a role in all elections, the County Election Board has a role in elections to the County Assemblies and Parliament, and the NEB has a role in parliamentary elections only.
There is a separate Party Law from 2005 that regulates, among other issues, the registration of candidates for elections. Administrative responsibility for party registration is given to the national administrative body that registers companies. The government appoints a Party Law Complaints Commission, led by a judge, to adjudicate complaints regarding party registration and financing.
The administrative authority for conducting elections is thus highly decentralized. At the central level there is one multiparty body (the NEB) with limited formal authority. Most other tasks at the national level are carried out by the Ministry. However, other administrative bodies are involved in elections. Electoral registers are extracts of the civil registers, which are administered by a unit under the national tax authorities. Appeals may be filed with a committee appointed by the Ministry.
The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development
The Ministry’s responsibility for elections falls into three areas:
- Laws, rules and regulations. This area includes the preparation of any changes to the laws regulating elections, the issuing of detailed instructions within the legal framework, and support for election administrators and the public in interpreting the law and the instructions.
- The conduct of elections. The Ministry’s functions include the provision of detailed instructions, including the definition of electoral procedures; the production of election material, including forms and the design of the ballot paper; the provision of information to election personnel; advice to local administrators, including the provision of report templates; voter education campaigns; approving e-voting arrangements; coordinating the information flow of election results with the media and private IT companies; serving as the secretariat for the NEB; preparing any complaints relating to parliamentary elections for a final decision by Parliament; and adjudicating complaints for local elections (as a final instance). The Ministry may order a repeat election, if necessary, if a fault has affected the results.
- Budget and budget control. The Ministry administers and controls the budget for elections only at the central level, whereas the main costs are carried at the local level and there is no overview of the total election costs. The budget for the Ministry’s own costs was approximately EUR 6 million for 2013. The Ministry has 16 persons working on elections, which is a significant increase from earlier years; this was necessitated by the development of a centrally operated information and communications technology (ICT) system for election administration. The election boards at the municipal level are the main authorities responsible for keeping skilled election staff.
The National Electoral Board
The NEB is not a permanent body; its term ends when the parliamentary elections are certified. It has at least five members. Each party with representatives in Parliament proposes one man and one woman, and the government appoints one as a member and one as an alternate. The authority of the NEB is limited to:
- distributing the national compensatory seats;
- issuing certificates to all elected members of Parliament and informing the County Electoral Boards about the results; and
- adjudicating complaints. For issues regarding the right to vote or the validity of a parliamentary election, Parliament is the final instance, after having heard the NEB; in other issues the NEB is the final adjudicator.
Electoral Management Reform
The new election laws of 1985 and 2002 followed a political debate on issues regarding the system of representation; in both cases, the government had appointed commissions with both expert and political representation, which had the mandate of proposing reforms. The structure of electoral management was assessed by the Election Reform Commission, which submitted its report in 2001. The structure was inspired by the UK model, thus an independent election commission was proposed with mainly policy tasks and few direct administrative duties. This proposal arose from the perceived advantages of having a body to concentrate mainly on election reform, leaving electoral administration to the regular parts of the government administration, rather than from a call for greater independence in the administration of elections. Such a commission would, however, bring Norway closer to international trends and to standards being recommended in new democracies. The proposal did not win much support, mostly because the current arrangements work well. Nor was a second proposal, to transfer the administrative work on elections from the Ministry to the department of the tax authorities which maintains the civic register, adopted.
In 2010 the Ministry took two initiatives, one on reforming the central administration of election support and one on making a few changes to the election law. On the administrative side, a government directorate had issued a report suggesting that a new central election unit should be established with the status of a directorate, which would secure a degree of independence from the politically led Ministry and take over most of the tasks covered by the Ministry. It was also foreseen that in the future, a more intensive development and testing of new election technology would be needed. It was further suggested to remove the authority to settle disputes, which today rests with the Ministry, to a separate complaints committee. The Ministry requested stake- holders’ opinions on the suggestions, but they have not yet passed any formal proposal to Parliament.
Partly based on comments made by the OSCE/ODIHR mission to assess the parliamentary elections of 2009, the Ministry suggested some amendments to the law that were passed by Parliament in 2012. The most relevant amendment was that candidates can no longer be members of election boards or serve as polling committee staff.
New Technology
Three municipalities and Spitsbergen conducted tests for e-voting in polling stations during the 2003 local elections. Then a government commission issued a report proposing a strategy on e-voting in February 2006. Among the commission’s recommendations was a trial of Internet voting; the Ministry initiated a large ICT project, including an election administration system and piloting of Internet voting, in ten municipalities during the 2011 local elections. There are political disagreements regarding the principle of allowing Internet voting in uncontrolled environments, and a decision on whether that will be continued in full scale remains to be taken.
Opportunities and Constraints
The Norwegian approach to electoral management has never been seriously challenged by the political contestants. Generally speaking, the government administration enjoys a high level of trust in its integrity and independence, despite being subordinate to politically appointed ministers. Elections have not been seen as requiring independent administration. On the rare occasions when serious mistakes have occurred (for example, when the IT system for marking the electoral registers broke down in Oslo during the 1993 parliamentary elections), these have been seen as incidental lapses. Fundamental questions regarding the organization of elections have not been raised.
The principle of ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ has so far proved decisive in the decision-making process about Norway’s electoral administration.
