The Question

This question is posed on behalf of a member of the Practitioners' Network at Transparency Maldives.

Recently published regulations on presidential elections in the Maldives state that the list of those who voted in an election will only be available through a court order.

• What are the international best practices on publishing a list of the people who voted in an election? 
• How is this regulated in other countries?

Summary of Responses

Undermining or not undermining the secrecy of the vote

Several members of the Practitioners’ Network (PN) argued that the publication of whether voters voted or not falls under the principle of the secrecy of the vote. Therefore, they believed the publishing of such information would undermine the secrecy of the vote. It was also suggested that international best practice is to not publish the list of people who voted and that it should be discouraged wherever possible to avoid raising privacy issues. Indeed, the Council of Europe's Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, section I.4.54, states that: “since abstention may indicate a political choice, lists of persons voting should not be published."

One PN member also noted that publishing a list of the people who voted in an election would create strong reactions in Canada including raising concerns of privacy. Moreover, in countries with recent dictatorial history it could be seen as a tool to control or pressure voters. Another PN member emphasized that in counties with recent history of conflict and intimidation of voters, publishing the list of voters would discourage participation. For instance, in Nigeria only the number of people who voted is published at the polling station level. This was also the case in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The point was also made in the discussion that a list of persons who voted does not reflect for whom these persons voted and that therefore the secrecy of the vote would not be undermined. One respondent was of the view that the publication of this information should consequently not require a court order. 

In the United Kingdom, one member noted, anyone can inspect the so called “marked register”, which shows who voted by polling stations as well as by post (see Regulation 118(1) of the Representation of the People Regulations 2001; and Electoral Commission note). New Zealand is another example that follows the UK system, and where the list of those who voted in an election is available for public inspection at the Registrar of Elector's offices until the next general election.

According to one respondent, information about whether a person voted is stored in the each state’s voter files in the United States of America. This information is made available in different ways across the different states, such as publishing it online or offering lists against a nominal fee. Furthermore, the respondent was of the view that the principle of the secrecy of the vote is not undermined by making this information available, and compared it to allowing election observers or poll-watchers to examine the voters list or who enters polling stations to vote. 

Moreover, political parties and candidates can use information about who voted to target efforts aimed at increasing participation in elections and voter turnout. Similarly, the information can be used to better target voter education efforts, and to improve electoral integrity by discouraging multiple voting or manipulation during tabulation and by allowing CSOs and political parties to conduct better audits of the voters list. The fact that voters can still vote their conscience in secret at the polling station or spoil their ballot, and that the information about who voted is collected by election administrators and possibly only accessible to the government/ruling party was seen by the respondent as additional arguments that in the end weighed heavier than the risk of making information available to “bad actors” seeking to intimidate voters.

Another PN member was of the view that while the list of voters was not published in her country, such practice would improve transparency and still keep how a vote is cast secret. Several members agreed that transparency would be improved, and it was further noted that such lists of voters could help inform voter turnout and voter registration initiatives.

Additional perspectives

Other perspectives included Jamaica, where information about who voted in an election can only be released through a court order once the final vote count, or a recount, has been completed. One PN member endorsed this practice as the best international standard. In Romania, according to another member, the Permanent Electoral Authority checks lists of those who voted for double voting at certain electoral events. Further, it was noted that the list of those who voted in Switzerland is not legally protected but it is also not published. 

Finally, the Electoral Management Body in Burundi, one member shared, needed statistical information of gender balance in elections. To find the number of women who voted they opened all 6,969 polling station envelopes after the expiration of the period for election disputes, to compile information about who voted. The respondent noted that similar exercises could be done to inform civic and voter education campaigns.

External Resources

• Council of Europe - Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters 
• UK Electoral Commission note 

Names of Contributors

• Orrette Fisher
• Kout Sene
• Alain Gauthier
• Tetteh Ankama Okyne
• Frank Vassallo
• Muhammad Musa Sokoto
• John David Bennett
• Jørgen Elklit
• Jacqueline Mwebesa Atuheirwe
• Ngondo Ndjondo Abbel
• David Kuennen
• Víctor Hugo Ajila
• Christine Ndayishimiye
• Francisco Barrera
• Amon Emmanuel Chaligha
• Michel Chevallier
• Cristian-Alexandru Leahu
• Bucumi Julius
• Robert Marsh
• Ababacar Fall
• Norbert Masson
• Hyacinthe Kirasagirijwe

In jamaica once the final count (or at the request of a candidate a magesterial recount) has been completed, the information can only be  released through a court order. What would be of interest is the reason the information is being requested.  

Je pense que dans beaucoup de pays, il est toujours prévu un registre d'émargement qui permet de faire signer tous les lecteurs qui se présentent le jour du scrutin. Ces registres sont normalement archivés après avoir servi à valider les statistiques du scrutin pendant le dépouillement, en ce qui concerne le nombre de votants. Cette liste d'émargement a été utilisée dans certain pays pour procéder à la refonte partielle du fichier, à partir d'un scrutin.  En effet, il peut servir de base pour organiser la révision d'un fichier électoral à partir des électeurs qui ont participé à la dernière consultation. On élimine ainsi les électeurs décédés, à charge pour les électeurs qui n'ont pas participé, de se réinscrire pendant la révision. La publication de cette liste ne doit pas nécessiter une décision de justice car elle ne viole pas le secet du vote. 

The very idea of publishing the list of electors who voted would raise a strong reaction if it were to be proposed to Canadians. I believe that in a few countries that I have lived in, that have a recent dictatorial history (such as Iraq, one could easily add Syria to the list), it would be perceived as a tool to control or pressure populations.

A pertinent question would be :  What could be the useful results of such "publishing"?

The uses outlined by M. Sene do not require "publishing" since they concern EMB-related activities.

Finally, I beg to differ on the matter of protection of vote secrecy. The principle of vote secrecy is to protect electors' freedom of vote. In many countries, not voting is seen as an expression of dissatisfaction or even distrust. In Haiti, for example, the ballot paper includes a line labeled "Okenn Kandida" which roughly translates as "none of the candidates". Thus, in my opinion, the EMB should not offer ready-made lists providing pressure groups with a tool to target non-voters.
In addition, in Canada, I believe this publication would be perceived as a serious privacy issue.

As to electors registry maintenance, which does not require "publication" of the list of electors who voted, removing deceased people is a significant, albeit elusive, goal in many countries, and it could be the topic of another (very broad and interesting) debate.

Best regards to all and thanks for your very enlightening reflections.

Publishing the list will invalidate the principle of secrecy of the ballot which is fundamental to the election.

I would suggest that international best practice is the NON publication of list of people who voted and it should be discouraged where ever possible. As Alain Gauthier wrote it would be seen as having serious privacy issues and not only in Canada but in many other countries. I have worked in numerous Eastern and Southern African countries and other places and I have not come across a single country that publishes such a list even with a court order.

I personally would suggest that access by the courts to such lists is one thing but publication is something that should never be considered.

Good luck!

In the UK anyone may inspect what we call the 'marked register' - i.e. that copy which shows who voted in person at a polling station and who voted by post.  This is covered by Regulation 118(1) of the Representation of the People Regulations 2001.  Our Electoral Commission says:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/57931/Part-H-Access-and-supply-November-2012.pdf

3.9 Any person may inspect the marked register and marked absent voter

lists, including those who are entitled to purchase a copy. As with the full

electoral register, inspection of registers and lists is free of charge. Any person

wanting to inspect must apply in writing and must:

electoral register, inspection of registers and lists is free of charge. Any person

wanting to inspect must apply in writing and must:

 specify which register or document they wish to inspect

 state whether they wish to inspect a printed or data copy (where

appropriate)

appropriate)

 state why inspection of the full register or unmarked lists would not be

sufficient to achieve the purpose

sufficient to achieve the purpose

 state who will be inspecting the documents, and

 state the date on which they wish to make the inspection

3.10 The documents must be made available within 10 days of receipt of the

application.  The Electoral Registration Officer must arrange for them to be

inspected under supervision and for a reasonable amount of time.

3.11 The people inspecting the documents can make copies of the registers

and lists using handwritten notes only. The use of laptop computers to type in

information, recording equipment, scanners, etc. is not allowed. Making a note

of every record with abbreviations would be acceptable, as would

the bringing of an existing paper copy of a register or list and then marking it.

inspected under supervision and for a reasonable amount of time.

3.11 The people inspecting the documents can make copies of the registers

and lists using handwritten notes only. The use of laptop computers to type in

information, recording equipment, scanners, etc. is not allowed. Making a note

of every record with abbreviations would be acceptable, as would

the bringing of an existing paper copy of a register or list and then marking it.

information, recording equipment, scanners, etc. is not allowed. Making a note

of every record with abbreviations would be acceptable, as would

the bringing of an existing paper copy of a register or list and then marking it.

In the Council of Europe's Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, section I.4.54, it is noted that: “since abstention may indicate a political choice, lists of persons voting should not be published."

Please see the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters for further reference.

I just want to add my voice to those who very strongly and convincingly have argued/explained that the publication of whether voters voted or nor is part of the secrecy of the vote, and - therefore - the publication of the names of those who voted will be a clear violation of the secrecy of the vote, and therefore something which is not permissible under a democratic dispensation.

in most countries where war and intimidation of voters is common,publishing the voter's list would definitely discourage future participation in such an exercise.what would be the essence of secret ballot voting then? In my country,we had village elections done by lining sometime back but you cant believe how much hatred and conflict it bred among neighbours and friends and yet we thought this was fair and transparent,and this is the smallest unit of our administrative units,we are now proposing secret ballot at that level too.

Sur le plan international, je n'ai aucune connaissance sur la pratique de publication de liste de personnes qui ont voté à une élection; je crois à ma humble avis que si telle situation pourra avoir lieu, on arrivera aux inimitiés et aux règlement de compte. ce qui est permis, est la publication du nombre de votant, du nombre de vote valable, du nombre de vote nul et d'abstention.

Dans mon pays la République Démocratique du Congo, les élections sont régies bien sur par la constitution du pays et par la loi électorale ; et cette dernière dans article 68 alinéa 2, je cite "aussitôt le dépouillement terminé, le résultat est immédiatement rendu public et affiché devant le bureau de dépouillement suivant les modalités arrêtées par la commission électorale nationale indépendante. la fiche de résultat est signée par tous les membres du bureau de dépouillement et les témoins" et dans l'article 70 de cette même loi électorale, elle renchéri que "...le président du centre de compilation rend public, en affichant au centre, les résultats du vote pour les élections législative, provinciale, urbaine, communale et locale, et les résultats partiels de l'élection présidentielle au niveau de ville ou du territoire".

Vu l'esprit de ces deux articles, le législateur n'a autorisé nul part l'affichage de liste de personne ayant pris part au vote par contre, il autorise l'affichage du nombre de votant, le nombre de bulletin valablement exprimé et celui de bulletin nul.

Coincido plenamente con los compañeros sobre la necesidad de mantener el secreto del voto, porque la publiccación de la lista de votantes provocará reacciones que pueden ser más negativas que positivas.

Pregunto, cuál es la finalidad de publicar una lista de votantes? Quiénes podrían estar interesados para ir a la cortes a solicitar la autorización judicial?. Considero que de ninguna manera se debe permitir esta publicación.

Además, para mantener el registro electoral actualizado el organismo electoral tiene prácticas que no requieren tal publicación.

Si los partidos políticos solicitan el registro de electores, también es posible entregarles pero manteniendo siempre el secreto del voto.

Por último, no estoy de acuerdo que las cortes judiciales decidan sobre materia electoral, porque la tendencia es hacia la autonomía de poderes y funciones.

Saludos cordiales

Christine NDAYISHIMIYE du Burundi

Je pense que la publication de la liste des électeurs effectifs après le vote est une bonne pratique qui a pour vocation de rendre le processus électoral transparent. Seulement, il faut que cette pratique soit prévue par le code électoral. Dans mon pays, cela n'est pas prévu.

Christine NDAYISHIMIYE du Burundi

Certains collègues pensent que afficher la liste des votants serait une façon de violer le secret du vote. Je préciserais que pour que le secret du vote soit sauvegardé, il suffit d'afficher seulement les noms des votants sans préciser pour qu ils ont voté. Cette liste servirait à faciliter le contrôle du processus et partant la transparence.

Yo digo que la lista de los posibles votantes se debe publicar, es más, siempre se publica pues es el censo o registro electoral, indudablemente se debe tener una lista actualizada de los que desean y pueden votar, cosa distinta a las dos siguientes listas: La de las personas que votaron y si se está controlando por quien votaron, esto último sería muy grave, pero recordemos que en algún país de sur América, han utilizado el tema de las firmas de votantes, para amedrantar y señalar a las personas que se inscriben para revocatorias de mandatos.

Todo depende de los documentos permitidos y restringidos según las normas y reglamentos, que deben estar previamente definidos, también quienes son los autorizados para conocer y manipulara esta información.

Finalmente, el secreto del voto depende de la organización y el acceso a votar, las bases de datos deben tener un criterio de confidencial, que solamente la autoridad competente determine quién las puede usar y con que criterios se deben entregar para conocimiento diferente al electoral.

I do not  see why a list of people who voted should be published. If there is an election dispute which involves   voters, such as an allegation involving non qualified voters, the court is the right place to order the publication of such a list. This is the best international standard that I am aware of. 

In Switzerland, the list of citizens having cast a ballot is not legally protected, but it is niot published either. It is indeed hard to see its use, other than to pressure voters ex post or check whether they have complied with some sort of requirements to cast a given ballot (vote buying).

Another reason might be, when a minimum turnout is required by law to validate a ballot outcome, to chceck wheter voters complied with an order to abstain or to vote.

I only know 2 examples of such publication:

-In Venezuela or the recall referendum in 2005, list of voters having cast a ballot (if I am not mistaking, the list only contained the names of those having cast a vote against the president) were published to publicly denounce them

-In France, when French voters abroad can vote by internet, a list of the voters having voted online is produced for the polling stations to refuse any further vote by these citizens. This is possible by derogation from the law that prohibits such lists.  

In Romania, the list of persons who voted is not published. Instead, at certain electoral events (EP elections, presidential elections and national referendums) the Permanent Electoral Authority  (PEA) checks these lists for double voting. If PEA finds double votes it will notify the prosecutor's bureau.

Also, every citizen has the right to obtain from the PEA an excerpt of the electoral list she/he was enrolled in, containing only her/his personal data (including the signature). If she/he sees that someone else voted in her/his name will make a complaint at the prosecutor's bureau. 

The question needs deep reflexion to kwow for what purposes the lists of voters have to be published dispite the the high cost of the operation.

For the purposes of tranparency and crediblity of the electoral process, there roll is made public and available by every body to let people know the number of voters at all levels: from national level until the polling stations. This helps to reduce elections rigging and disputes. There is no violation of the secret of vote for no one can know who the person voted for.

In Burundi, the electoral law(article 71) stipulates of 4 types of envelope of transmission in which the election results and the checking list of voters are put , sealed and sent to whom it concerns.

- one for the presiding officer of the polling station

- one for the presiding officer at communal level

- one for the presiding officcer at provincial level

- One for all candidates present on the polling station

For  more transparency and double verificatio, the burundi EMB put in place two additional envelopes general elections as a best practice for more transparency and credibility:

- One for the ICT treatment center at national level where the election results for each polling station were captured. The results obtained are compared to those given by the manual compilation from all constituencies by the EMBstaff. This was called double verification.

-One for the Constitutional Court for verification in case of disputes. No one, even the EMB staff is allowed to open this sealed envelope except the Constitutional Court.

Any one who wants to know who voted at a given polling station, could find all the cordinates at all those levels where envelopes are kept.

In Burundi, the EMB had a need to know the number of women who really participated to vote for the statistical purposes of gender balance in election issue. After the expiration of the period of all legal possibilities of election disputes, the 6969 envelopes from the 6969 polling stationsThe operation costed more than 30.000 US dollars.

The same exercise can be done for more civic and voter education campaign, the will of knowing the ages of voters who really voted , etc

The operation is good  for election knowledge managemnt to improve the future election processes.

Julius BUCUMI

Inspector of Justice , Burundi

New Zealand follows the UK model.  The marked "master roll" for each electorate is lodged with the Registrar of Electors for the electorate.  It is then available for public inspection at the Registrar's offices until the next general election. 

I am not aware of the practice ever causing any significant issues, but then ours is one of the most settled democracies in the world.

This question has been raised recently within the NZ Electoral Commission but has not yet received comprehensive analysis, much less decision-making.

Je pense que la publication de la liste des électeurs qui ont voté n'est pas une pratique courante. Dans le cas de notre pays, le Sénégal, une fois les élections terminées et les résultats proclamés par le conseil constitutionnel, les listes d'émargement ne présentent plus un grand intérêt. Le fait de les publier ne constitue pas à mon avis une violation du secret du vote, car à partir de ces listes, on ne peut pas savoir pour qui l'électeur a voté ; le seul renseignement qu'ont peut en tirer c'est de connaitre le nombre d'électeurs ayant voté en comptant le nombre de signature ou de l'indication 'a voté' devant chaque nom. Pour rappel dans notre pays, quand il s'est agit de procéder à une refonte partielle du fichier électoral après les élections de 2000, les listes d'émargement ont été utilisées pour identifier les électeurs qui avaient voté au premier et au deuxième tour pour qu’ils constituent le noyau dur à partir duquel la refonte partiel devait se faire. Cela n'a pas nécessité pour autant une ordonnance judiciaire. Le cas de la république des Maldives constitue à mon avis un cas isolé, peut être que c'est prévu par leur loi électorale. Je ne connais pas d'autres pays qui sont dans ce cas.

Ababacar Fall

Expert Électoral

Dakar (Sénégal)

A list of persons who voted does not reflect for whom the voters voted; therefore the question of secrecy in that regard does not arise. I would be more interested in those persons who did not vote as a basis for determining their current status. Why they did not vote or their reason for so doing does not interest me assuming they were capable voting at the time. By seeking out such persons It is possible that the accuracy of the electoral list could be improved. A survey of such individuals could be undertaken to determine whether the absentee voters are either still alive, dead, or,migrated to another country,or to another constituency etc.. Such information could assist in cleaning up the electors list. 

Eviter les électeurs fictifs,non radiation des personnes décédées,vote multiple, vote des mineurs,vote des étrangers,vote des prisonniers ;permet l’intégrité,transparence,équité,égalité,redevabilité,souci du service,professionnalisme,confiance,outils de travail,élection fiable,éviter des contentieux électoraux, honnêteté,impartialité,probité,neutralité,rationalité,communication 

La publication des listes des électeurs qui ont voté dans une élection présente en grande partie des avantages:

-Ca aura un impact positif en diminuant les lementations qui s'observent chez les candidats aux élections qui évoquent souvent des cas des fraudes et des tricheries après le vote.

-Le taux de participation des électeurs sera élevé dans la mesure où ceux qui s'absentent aux élections sans motif valable auront peur d'être marginalisés par leurs concitoyens nationalistes.

-Tout citoyen qui cherche à s'enquérir du taux de participation de la population dans une élection et dans les différentes entités aura facillement accès à ces informations.