The Question
This question was posted on behalf of Mr Elijah James, Member of NGO/Civil Society Organization in Antigua & Barbuda ([email protected])

Should lead or electoral administrative officials (supervisor of elections, head of electoral authorities and similar) retain the right to vote in an electoral process, despite the due influence or perception of conflict of interest they may have on the electorate as being facilitators of the process?

Are there examples of countries around the world where head of electoral authorities or similar are legally bound not to vote in the electoral processes they actually administer?

Thank you for your viewpoints.
Kind regards,
Elijah James

Summary of responses
The overwhelming view is that electoral officials should be able to vote and that any disenfranchisement is unjustified and contravenes a fundamental political right. Indeed, many countries go out of their way to facilitate officials’ voting and make special provisions for it.

The argument for denying the vote to electoral officials is that it is a necessary and warranted measure for ensuring the neutrality of election administration. The majority view of the replies received here, however, is that such a restriction is of negligible impact given the far more extensive power and influence election officials have over other areas of the election process outside of their own personal voting. Other more effective measures should therefore be employed to guarantee officials’ neutrality in the election process. In light of this, most experts do not see such disenfranchisement as justified.

There are cases where electoral officials are denied the right to vote for symbolic reasons, as a gesture aimed to reassure voters of officials’ neutrality. This is the reason cited in the examples of
Canada where the Chief Electoral Officer and the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer are not allowed to vote, and in Jamaica where the Director of Elections is also forbidden from voting.

In Morocco, where elections are administered by the Ministry of the Interior, no ministry staff are entitled to vote and neither are judges who chair local election committees. For one expert, such voting restrictions are justified in transitional democracies where the independence of electoral administration is not yet entrenched. In Mauritius, legislation dictates that returning officers are not entitled to vote in the constituency for which they are responsible. 

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Integrity in Election Administration
• Characteristics of Eligible Voters

 

Names of contributors
1. Ronan McDermott
2. Jagoda Petrovic-Ukaj
3. Monte McMurchy
4. Ray Kennedy
5. Carl Dundas
6. Ahmed Jazouli
7. Amina Rasul Bernardo
8. Ben Goldsmith
9. Peter Havas
10. Mahmad Ally Dahoo
11. Agustí Bosch
12. Khalid Waheed
13. Pradip Ghimire
14. Joan Mudindi Vwamu
15. Ron Gould
16. Amon Chaligha
17. Mirimo Mulongo
18. Horacio Boneo
19. Hadija Miiro
20. Samuel Kivuitu
21. Atem Oben Henry Ekpeni
22. Dr. Noor Mohammad
23. Bhojraj Pokharel
24. Alexandre Michaud
25. Immaculate Njenge
26. Charles Benjamin Nsimbi-Kabugujjo

 

Hello Elijah,

I'm not aware of any such restriction - it would be difficult to justify in any case! Many countries have special arrangements for voting for electoral officials (pollworkers, election management body staff, police or other uniformed personnel providing security) but these generally are designed to facilitate, not obstruct the right of these citizens. Some countries offer early voting, others postal voting for such categories of staff.

Some countries do limit the voting rights of army and police. But I'm not aware of any country that limits the right of senior officials of election management bodies to vote.

Arguably, the influence of such officials extends way beyond their vote - so whether they vote or not is of marginal impact. If such officials are biased (naturally or by intimidation) towards one party or other, and they are partisan in their daily work, the impact on the legitimacy of the entire election may be measurable. Restricting their right to vote won't alter that undesirable scenario.

A final thought - since governments usually pay for elections, should government ministers be denied the right to vote?

I look forward to other contributions - it will be interesting to see if any countries do limit electoral officials' rights.

 

Dear friends, it should be: as an official person in electoral process person have specific rights and obligations, but in the same time person is citizen of specific country and she/he have a regular right to vote, with no any limitation.  

Jagoda

The question posed is both 'fair'-'reasoned' and prescriptively 'sound' in terms of both securing and enhancing fundamental elemental civic electoral considerations.

My response is simple and to the point----no to any form of vote denial! Electoral Officers regardless of position and stature should at all times not ever ever be denied the[ir] privilege and the[ir] right to vote [only].

Yesterday in my country Canada, a general election was held which was conducted under the rules and protocols as advanced by Elections Canada. For the most part this election was considered as being administratevely sound with no real concerns as the voting process was deemed as being more or less  without any fundamental problem/issue which could invalidate the poll or election.

In Canada, all local part time for a general election purpose only; electoral officers are appointed by Elections Canada with advice from the Government in power through the local Member of Parliament. These non professional people are contracted for a fee to perform electoral duties during the electoral period including election day, a time period of no more than 40 days. All these temporary contract people are entitled to vote but are absolutley prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in the partisan advancement of any candidate or political entity. Each of the 308 Electoral Ridings in Canada is supervised and managed by a District Returning Officer [DRO] who is responsible under the supervision, control and direction of Elections Canada for the training of Poll Election Officers who are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that any eligible voter is able to cast his/her ballet according to the electoral code of procedure.

I observed numerous polling stations yesterday and found for the most part that these temporary election officers conducted themselves in a most professional and exemplary manner.

Every  Electoral Officer in Canada from the Chief Election Officer down to the most insignificant temporay electoral clerk is entitled to vote [only]. Strict prohibitions are mandated and enforced ensuring that all Canadian Electoral Officers conduct themselves in a professional value neutral manner.

I observed these electoral officials assist and answer all questions put to them by citizen voter in how to register and ensure that the name is on the list and if missing as to how to vote on election day. 

I consider that those electoral officers who have in the past participated in the political civic process are more effective as electoral officers who at all times must ensure complete neutrality and non partisan assistance which I can assure you is most severely regulated and enforced so as to ensure that the thousand + polling stations are effective and efficient instruments of advancing electoral vote participation as yesterday millions of Canadians participated in their sacred rite of casting a vote ballot without fear and any form of intimidation and moral suaision. 

Monte McMurchy

Canada

Dear Colleagues,

Ron Gould or others can provide the rationale, but see the following for the basic response:

Canada Elections Act

PART 1

ELECTORAL RIGHTS

Persons qualified as electors

3. Every person who is a Canadian citizen and is 18 years of age or older on polling day is qualified as an elector.

Disentitlement from voting

4. The following persons are not entitled to vote at an election:

• (a) the Chief Electoral Officer;


• (b) the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer

The electoral laws and or constitutions are not standardised with respect to this issue. The usual constitutional right conferred on citizens/subjects (in the case of the United Kingdom) of a country in respect of the right to vote, subject to a few exceptions such as age restrictions, conviction of heinous crimes, or in certain cases conviction of breaches of the electoral law, as well as mental illness, extend to all citizens and may even include non-citizens/subjects (as is the case of Commonwealth nationals in some Commonwealth countries). In some countries, like Jamaica, for example, the Director of Elections is forbidden by the legislative scheme to vote, for fear that the perception of voting may dilute his/her impartiality.

I have encountered cases, for example, in the  Kenyan election of 1992, where thousands of election officers were not allowed to vote in general elections. In some cases, the electoral law itself may be unclear on the point and the definitive position may rest with the constitution. 

Hi all,

This is seriously a real issue when those who administer elections are ordinary citizens that belong to parties, practice campaigning and vote.  From the first glance, it seems that there’s a proved conflict of interest.

In Morocco, the ministry of interior administers elections and all its members are not authorized to vote or even belong to political parties. This is part of the electoral law. The same restriction goes to judges who chair local electoral committees. In the same country (Morocco) the army and the police do not vote too.

Saying this, the case of independent citizens chairing electoral committees is challenging. In my point of view, this depends on the strength of the electoral process. It its within a beginning transitional democracy the independence of the electoral administration is one of the prerequisites of the fairness of the process. Africa has just experienced  the Ivory Coast case where the head of electoral commission declared the looser winner. On the opposite, we see in established democracies how soldiers and police vote.

Again, this depends on the stage of democracy and for transitional democracies, it’s better to have a totally independent electoral administration.

Best

Ahmed JazouliHi all,

I stand corrected insofar as The Chief Electoral Officer and The Deputy Chief Electoral Officer under the Canada Elections Act are prohibited from voting which was a response to 19th Century Electoral Imbroglio's.

The issue as to whether The Chief Electoral Officer and or his deputy are entitled to vote should be re-opened as I am a strong proponent of non-exclusion in terms of electoral franchise.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention as at times I write too fast.

Ron Gould is indeed one who is most conversant as to Canadian Electoral Practice.

Monte

In the Philippines, electoral administrative officers can vote.  This is a right of all citizens.   Considering that the Philippines has a voting population of some 60 million, the impact of the votes of election officers on the results is negligible. What does have impact and is illegal, of course, is electioneering. Amina

This is an interesting issue, but in my opinion there is a clear answer on this matter. The right to participate in the democratic process is a fundamental political right, established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This right includes the right to vote in elections and the right to stand for elected office. These rights have been repeated in various other regional human rights instruments and political commitments and lie at the very foundation of democratic standards and ensuring that the will of the people is the basis for government.

There are instances in which these rights can be legitimately denied to a person, but the UN Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 25 on the right to vote and participation in public affairs states that the right to vote "may be subject only to reasonable restrictions". Common circumstances when the right to vote might be denied to a person would include; that the person had not attained the legal age of majority (commonly 18 years of age); that the person was resident in but not a national of the state where the elections were taking place; on the grounds of mental incapacity; or on the grounds of criminal conviction for a serious crime (see Venice Commission (2002) Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters for a discussion on these).

The question that needs to be asked then is whether denying the fundamental political right to vote in elections is a reasonable restriction to be applied to staff administering elections, in particular polling staff (although in principle any restriction might be applied to all staff engaged in managing the electoral process). The argument for denying this right is that the election administration needs to ensure that it does implement, and is perceived as implementing, elections in a neutral manner, that it is not seen as deliberately influencing the process to the advantage one or more contestants.

I would argue that denying polling officials the right to vote is not the most effective mechanism for ensuring this important principle of neutral conduct of elections by the election management body, and does not therefore meet the requirement of being a 'reasonable restriction'.

The impartiality of polling staff can be far better achieved by clear rules with respect to the conduct of elections, establishing the requirement for impartial exercise of duties by all polling staff,  the provision of clear rights for election observers and political party/candidate agents to observe all stages of the electoral process, and the establishment of effective penalties and complaints mechanisms where violations of these rules are observed.

Ultimately, election officials have the same fundamental political rights as other citizens and should be allowed to exercise these rights. While the aim of impartial election administration is very important for the credibility of elections, it does not justify the denial of these voting rights to election officials as this denial is not an effective means of ensuring this aim. In fact many jurisdictions make special provisions to enable (not deny) electoral officials working on polling day to cast their ballots, often through postal balloting arrangements. Therefore I would make a strong case, based on clearly established international electoral standards, that people should at least be allowed to vote in elections in which they act as polling staff, and maybe even that special provisions should be made to allow them to exercise this fundamental political right.

 

Ben Goldsmith.

This reply is posted on behalf of Peter Havas, member of the Practitioners' Network.

 

This reply was posted on behalf of Mr Mahmad Ally Dahoo, Chief Electoral Commissioner in Mauritius and member of the Practitioners' Network.

 

The Mauritian electoral legislation provides that the Returning Officer is NOT entitled to vote in the Constituency or electoral area for which he is the Returning Officer

Dear colleagues,

I shall just provide some country specific information for the Spanish case. As far as I know, election officials do not have any restriction to vote (art 3.1 of the Electoral Law), but they are NOT entitled to stand as candidates in any election (art 6.1.j).

It is very interesting question. Officials of EMB should vote or not. In fact it should be seen in broader prospective.They are the citizens of that country and otherwise qualify to participate in elections as just voters and not as affiliated with any specific party or individual candidate.

The official position of EMB's staff should in no case influence the electoral process for any specific purpose other than fair , free and transparent elections and this should be the free choice of voter to give mandate in elections  and not the EMB's official to divert their mandate. 

 

Dear all,

 

I think, Voting rights as unalienable rights of individual citizen should be ensured, from which the electoral officials shouldn’t avoided. As a citizen of that country or territory they must be liable for choosing the best candidate for respective electoral position.

 

Actually, the main concern is neutrality, to keep the election away from any extra influence and interest. For this the sufficient legal and procedural rules can be developed rather restricting individual’s birth rights in establishing democratic governance. Let’s not forget that in establishment of inclusive democratic culture, is it right to restrict on citizen’s rights? Moreover, Voting is a psychological and ideological too, which can make them responsible and active to preserve democratic values and norms.

 

In regard to human rights and establishment of democratic culture, electoral officials voting rights shouldn’t be restricted.

Pradip Ghimire

Voting is a Constitutional Right which many have fought for for a long time. It enables voters participate in decision making of who are the preferred leaders to represent their interests. This should not be denied to any eligible voter. Election Officials are eligible voters too and as they develop their career in this field they should be also participate. This will make them part of the process. I believe that  participating in voting will not affect the impartiality of the officials. It should be made clear that these officials at all levels should not participate in the campaign or any activity to indicate biasness. The secrecy of the ballot on the voting day would then be guaranteed by secret balloting. I therefore think that all election officials should exercise their right to vote. 

This reply is posted on behalf of the South African Chief Electoral Officer, relayed to the network via Ron Gould, a PN member.

"Dear Ron
 
In South Africa the law does not preclude electoral officers, including the Chief Electoral Officer and the members of the Commission from voting
 
Regards."

This reply is posted on behalf of Amon Chaligha, member of the PN

In my opinion the right to vote is an inalienable constitutional right for any citizen unless if disqualified by the electoral law. Since voting is a basic human right it cannot be denied of electoral officials, so long as they are citizens and they are registered in the voters register.

Hence, election officials should be allowed to vote as they wish. However, the right to vote should not be mixed with the professional management of the electoral process. Rule of law, transparency and accountability must reign supreme if the electoral process is to be considered legitimate and credible. In otherwords, individual preferences should never be mixed with public decisions. The pescribed principles and processess as stipulated in election regulations and legislations should be followed to the letter and should not in any way be compromised by voting behaviors of election officials. It must be duty and country first before individual choices.

In some countries officials are allowed to vote a day  or two before the election day. While in others, on election day, officials who have been moved from stations where they registered as voters are given special permission to vote where they have been posted.

Normally, in many countries election officials are the first to cast their ballots at opening time after the opening ceremony i.e in the presence of party agents, local and international election observers and the voters in the que, all witness how officials cast their ballots. Ballot boxes have to be shown to observers and party/candidate agents and the voters in the que that they are empty before election officials or any voter is allowed to cast their votes. Thus, in my view election officials should not in any way be disenfranchised because of their official position.

                                                                                                                                                                                  

 Chers Collègues,

Dans mon Pays la RD Congo,les agents électoraux ainsi que les responsables électoraux à tous les niveaux sont autorisés à voter,par contre les militaires et les policiers ne sont pas autorisés à voter.La RD Congo est un pays poste conflit, le Législateur congolais a, lors de l'élaboration du cadre légal devant régir les élections,exclu les militaires et les policiers qui du reste sont issus des différents mouvements et groupes armés de participer au vote.

Franche collaboration.

 MIRIMO MULONGO Dieudonné

RD CONGO

 

 

Let me begin by saying that I consider that the restriction to the right to vote of EMB members is both an unusual occurrence and a rather inadequate measure.  However, this restriction is conceptually different from that frequently existing for persons who have committed crimes (even if entirely unrelated to elections), where it can be considered as a sort of punishment – most probably of limited impact.  The logic of restrictions to military and police is also based on different grounds.  What is then the logic of such a restriction on EMB officers? 

A point raised by Ron McDermott in his initial comment makes it clear the electoral irrelevance of the measure: “Arguably, the influence of such officials extends way beyond their vote - so whether they vote or not is of marginal impact.”  And this is absolutely truth: the power of manipulation in the hands of electoral officials is certainly of greater weight than the impact of her/his single vote.

The only explanation I can come up with for such unusual restriction is related to the assumed “symbolic” effect of the measure.  There are similar cases.  In the UK, I understand that the Queen does not vote – she is supposed to be above the political fights.  However, the potential symbolic impact varies from place to place and cannot be judged out of context.

There is also an implicit premise in the question that is not necessarily valid in some other cases: that the members of the EMB should be “impartial”.  That is one of the models for structuring electoral commissions.  But there is another model –that of the “balanced” commission, where political parties are represented in such a way that none of them would have a dominant position in decisions.  But it is better to stop here, otherwise we might get involved in a long long discussion.

 

This reply is posted on behalf of the South African Chief Electoral Officer, relayed to the network via Ron Gould, former assistant Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and a PN member.

 

In Canada, the Canada Elections Act prohibits the Chief Electoral Officer and the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer from voting in  the Canadian Federal elections which they manage.  They may vote in Provincial, Municipal etc elections.  All other federal election officials are permitted to vote in the federal elections.

Ron Gould, former Assistant Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

This reply is relayed to the network via Ron Gould, a PN member.

 

"Dear Ron, In India, the Law does not prohibit any electoral officer from exercising the franchise. Regards. Gopalaswami"

 

LIMITED VOTING RIGHTS TO LEADERS AND ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS

Yes electoral administrative officials should be allowed to vote. In most countries registration and polling administrative officials are national; deterring them from voting is in contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Moreover preventing electoral administrative officials from voting will deny them from the right to work and to serve their communities. The right to

Work in gainful employment is a fundamental human right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and so is the right to choose how to be governed.

 

Nonetheless , many electoral administrative officials find it difficult to vote due to lack of enabling administration arrangements required to ensure easy access to voting locations by electoral administrators which is again a deprivation of their fundamental right.

 

In any case prohibiting electoral administrative officials from voting will not necessarily increase transparency and integrity of the process nor will it prevent electoral administrative officials from having interests or preferences to candidates or systems, which is their right anyway.  By virtue of the positions and responsibilities held by electoral administrative officials and the information at their disposal, they can still have tremendous influence on the conduct and outcome of an election or referendum.

 

I hence submit that electoral management bodies should put more emphasis on preventive and curative mechanisms to ensure electoral administrative officials do not engage in  unethical behavior when administering elections/referenda.

These should include enabling laws, regulations and procedures that bar corruption or interference, enforceable sanctions, appropriate facilitation and more importantly proper, adequate training and sensitization of electoral administrative officials about their on their obligations and responsibilities in ensuring proper administration of their mandate.

To the extent possible, the role of electoral administrative officials should be limited to providing voter information. Civic education and arbitration of conflicts should be conducted by independent civil societies. Electoral administrative authorities should only play an oversight role to ensure civic education is conducted in a transparent, free and fair manner.

 

Hadija Miiro

This reply is posted on behalf of Samuel Kivuitu, member of the Practitioners' Network.

Dear ACE Practitioners Network,

The question posed by Mr. James is common among members of civil society.
It is based on genuine concern. However in my experience it ought not to arise. If a person is biased his/her refusal to vote will not alter, affect or improve his/her lack of impartiality. There are many other ways he or she could do to influence the election his or her way. It is therefore a small risk to let these election officials to vote their way.
We must bear in mind that the universality principle of the right to vote applies to these officials like anyone else. The harm on would do to them such denial has to be justified with clear proof that they abuse it. In a country like Kenya where over 150,000 Kenyans officiate at elections, such a ban may have an effect it was intended for. Just take into account the number in India and other populous states. I support the right of the persons to vote unless ther is proof of their bias, commonly.

Best regards.
Samuel Kivuitu.

My first concern is whether impartiality by EMB officials can only be seen in them voting. Do we mean that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and Deputy can not be seen as impartial because they don't take part in voting.

EMB officals need electricity, water and better life. All of these things make up a community whose management and leadership are given to people through elections. Like Samuel writes"In a country like Kenya where over 150,000 Kenyans officiate at elections, such a ban may have an effect it was intended for", the non participation of these group may greatly affect outcomes.

EMB officials not voting is even contrary to universal norms, UDHR.

 

I find overwhelming opinion in favour of the voting right being fundamental right of all citizens including the election staff. But in practice election staff may not be in a position to vote if suitable arrangements are not made for that purpose. In the event of attaching voters to polling stations, staff posted on election duty may not be able to vote if he is deputed on a polling station other than his own polling station and special arrangements are not made for such voters. In India we do make special arrangements but still quite many fail to exercise their voting rights.

However, debarring the election staff from voting amounts to denying their fundamental rights. 

In Nepal the law does not preclude electoral officers, including the Chief Electoral Officer and the members of the Commission from voting. Staff who are involved in polling management they are also given right to vote (in the proportional side because the whole country is one constituency for that purpose) in polling booth where they have been assigned, even if they do not belong to that constituency.
 

Bhojraj

As mentioned above, there is a provision in the Canada Elections Act that prohibits the CEO (Head of Elections Canada appointed by Parliament; there is no electoral commission overseeing the work of EC, except a parliamentary committee and other public entities which hold EC accountable) and Assistant Chief Electoral Officer (vacant position since 2000; appointed by the government of the day through Order in council).  Up until 2000, Returning Officers (ROs), who are responsible to manage the election in a given electoral district (First-Past-the-Post system) were prohibited to vote except when there was an equality of votes after a recount (A returning officer could only cast a vote to break a tie).  Since 2000, ROs have a right to vote like any other Canadian citizens.

What is more interesting here is the justification provided by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (The Lortie Commission) which published its report in 1991.  Although the Commission recommended against prohibiting the right to vote of the CEO, ACEO and ROs, it explained the old rationale as follows:

'The traditional rationale for denying the right to vote to the chief and assistant chief electoral officers is that these officials have executive authority to make rulings with respect to enforcing and implementing the electoral law.  [...] To ensure integrity and credibility in electoral contests, election officials must be seen to be committed to fair electoral practices and indifferent outcome.  Thus, disqualification was based on the need for impartiality.  in practice, however, this exclusion is symbolic and not justifiable in the functions they actually exercised. [...]

[on the other hand], it is clear that voting is a private act and does not entail participation in partisan activities that could impair the integrity of the election process.'

 

Some personal thoughts: While Parliament has not (yet perhaps) changed the disqualification for the CEO and ACEO, it remains uncertain as to whether the prohibition could survive a Charter-based challenge in court, as it occured for judges appointed by the federal government at the time of the 1988 elections (judges were prohibited from voting since 1874 before this Charter-based court decision).

Hope this help.

 

Alexandre

 

Elijah,

I would like to add my voice to this debate. My own observation is that election officials should be allowed to vote. Election officials are citizens of a given country and thus have fundamental rights to vote as stipulated in key international instrument such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Thus, to deny them the opportunity to vote is to disfranchise them.

Immaculate