The Question

This question was posted on behalf of Gregory Minjack, member of the Practitioners' Network.

The Georgian (Republic of,) Ambassador to France was recently quoted as saying that no Georgian citizen diaspora living illegally in their host countries will be allowed to vote in the upcoming parliamentary election on October 1, 2012.

I ask my distinguished colleagues whether they know of any other country that attempts to police the residency status of its diaspora for the purposes of voting or any other reason. This practice seems wrought with serious problems, Including: 1) what authority would a government have to track, and/or enforce the residency status of its citizens living abroad?, 2) how would the government officials be able to determine legal residency status of its citizens in other countries?, 3) what documents would prove legal residency (the USA has 185 types of visas -- how would the officials of any government be able to recognize authentic documents)?, and 4) it seems to me to be incongruent to tie residency status abroad to the constitutional right of suffrage.

Summary of responses
No other example is given of a country attempting to ascertain the residency status of its citizens abroad in the context of out of country voting.

The view of two practitioners is that such a practice would be neither justifiable nor practical. The right to vote is seen as tied to an individual’s citizenship of a given country, not to their residency status in another. The two matters are seen as completely separate and should not be mixed. One practitioner warns of the danger of doing so, noting that the host country’s role in preventing people of other nationalities from participating in out of country voting may be politically motivated. It is put forward that a better approach would be to focus on expatriates’ links to the mother country and to reform, if necessary, rules for out of country voting, rather than focusing on the status of citizens’ residency abroad. 

One expert, however, takes a different line, stating that “it is certainly a normal and accepted practice to specify external residence as a qualification for external registration,” and therefore “reasonable to specify the production of a residence document,” before going on to concede that this would be impractical to enforce and open to abuse by the host country authorities. 

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Entitlement to Vote from Abroad 
• The Roles and Responsibilities of Host Countries

Names of contributors
1. Kisimba Albert
2. Kout Sene
3. Michael William Joseph Clegg
4. Andrew Ellis

Je pense que la question du vote de la diaspora est  délicate dans la mesure où tous les pays en voie de développement ou presque, ne maitrise pas l’effectif des migrants et même leur localisation dans les pays d’accueil. Le départ serait de commencer par le recensement des nationaux vivants a l’étrangers afin d’avoir un fiche détaillée aux seins des ambassades et ou consulats cela permettrait d’évaluer le cout additionnel de la production du matériels utiles a leur vote. Mais tout ceci est un processus.

Nous avons beaucoup travaillé, en tant que Officier Electoral, sur la mise en place et la gestion d’un fichier spécial pour les Sénégalais résidants à l’extérieur. Nous pensons que, pour l’Institution qui est chargée d’organiser les élections pour le compte de son pays, il ne doit pas y avoir un lien entre le statut résidentiel de la personne dans le pays d’accueil et  son droit de vote. Ce statut dépend des lois du pays d’accueil et n’enlève en rien le droit de vote à l’émigré pour le compte de son pays. Il est vrai que les services consulaires et diplomatiques sont souvent chargés de l’enrôlement des électeurs à l’étranger ainsi que de l’organisation des scrutins dans ces pays, mais ils doivent veiller à ce que tous les citoyens en âge de voter et qui justifie de sa nationalité, dans leur juridiction, puissent participer à l’élection des dirigeants de leurs pays. La difficulté pour la représentation diplomatique, réside dans l’identification correcte de ses concitoyens, car souvent, s’ils n’ont pas un statut régulier, ils évitent de se présenter devant les services officiels. Pour notre expérience, nous avons travaillé dans un pays limitrophe où le consulat délivrait des cartes consulaires à tour de bras à des non nationaux. Peut-on logiquement refuser à un citoyen qui jouit de ses droits civiques et qui fournit les preuves de sa nationalité ? Je pense que non.

La tenue du fichier électoral des résidents dans un pays étranger relève des attributions des services consulaires indépendamment du pays d’accueil. A mon sens, le seul motif de refus du vote à une personne résidant à l’extérieur, doit être basé sur l’absence de la preuve de la nationalité et peut être de la perte des droits civiques. Le fichier électoral ne doit en aucun cas être croisé avec un fichier des personnes établies irrégulièrement du pays hôte.

I agree that it is impracticable to attempt to determine the legality of status of out-of-country Georgians in the country were they are located.  It is a matter of the law of another state.  Who would decide?   It would also take far too long.  

Further, the limitation on democratic rights must be minimized.  The view of the host state might be political.  Previous attempts to limit the right to vote because of unrelated issues such as non-payment of taxes have been widely considered to be unconstitutional.

It also raises the risk that one out-of-country voter or group would accuse another if being "illegal" because of political rivalry.

It is more relvant to consider whether those abroad really still have a right to vote.

1. Do they still have sufficient connection with Georgia. 

2. Do they intend to return?   

3. Do they have family, property or responsibility there?

4. Do they pay taxes there? 

5. Have they obtained or applied for citizenship in another country. 

Of course, this is not a proposed qualification list, just a few issues that should be discussed.  However that would have to be dealt with by law reform and it is probably too late to consider this issue now.

Michael Clegg  

As is often the case with electoral registration issues, I think there are two factors involved here: qualifications and evidence.  It is certainly a normal and accepted practice to specify external residence as a qualification for external registration. It could then be reasonable to specify the production of a residence document as evidence to support an application for registration.  However, no duty can be imposed on the host country to verify such a document, and indeed host countries might well take exception to being asked to do so.  The acceptance or otherwise of the evidence presented by an applicant for registration will be up to the country compiling the register.  It is obviously possible for the authorities of that country to try to discourage certain groups from registering by frightener tactics (as appears to be suggested in the Georgian case) or by acceptance of evidence on a differential basis - but I think the remedy may more naturally lie in the political (or possibly judicial) sphere rather than the legal/regulatory one.

In practice I am pretty sure that the opposite problem is much more common: where overseas citizens (often migrant workers) without proper status, with status but without proper documents, or even with proper documents but uncertain as to their status and welcome - are entitled to register and vote externally and wish to do so, but are deterred by the thought that entry on a register for external voting would assist the host country authorities in tracking them down and subsequently deporting them or taking other enforcement action against them.

Best

Andrew Ellis.