Posted on behalf of Anna Solyom, ACEEEO.

Dear Colleagues,

We would highly appreciate if anyone could give us information on this issue:

"I am currently doing research for the UN mission in Sudan for the upcoming referendum in January. There appears to be problems regarding voter registration for nomadic tribe members. For a specific referendum, voters must be considered residents to be able to vote in the constituency of Abyei. This referendum will determine if Abyei will be in Northern Sudan or Southern Sudan. In this region, there are many nomadic tribe members who are not being allowed to register to vote because they do not have a permanent residence.

A UN lawyer in Sudan wants to know what other countries do about this type of situation and if there is some kind of international standard.

I am looking into Canada's policies regarding nomadic aboriginal tribes and voting, but this information does not seem to be readily available. Any information would be appreciated."

Thank you in advance, and I am waiting for your answer.


Best wishes
Anna Solyom
ACEEEO Secretariat

Introduction: Guiding Principles of Voter Registration

Voter registration establishes the eligibility of individuals to cast a ballot, and it is one of the more costly, time-consuming and complex aspects of the electoral process. If conducted well, however, voter registration confers legitimacy to the whole electoral process. There are three general types of voter registration: i) periodic list; ii) continuous register or list; and iii) civil registry. Various factors influence the choice of system, with some of the most important considerations being the administrative capacity of the election authority; the country’s social, economic and demographic characteristics; and the occurrence of some special circumstances are only a few of them.

As explained in the ACE Encyclopaedia, the periodic list system (adopted in the case of the referendum in Sudan) is the simplest in many respects, as a new and accurate list of eligible voters is generated for each electoral event. One drawback with this system however, is the major effort that is required by the election authorities to generate accurate lists in the period leading up to an election. The continuous list or register, on the other hand, is a list of all currently eligible voters, adjusted to take account of voter registration changes between electoral events and maintained by electoral administrators. With this system, the work of developing and maintaining the voters list is distributed throughout the whole electoral cycle, and not only in the months immediately before the electoral event. It can this bee seen as diametrically opposite the periodic list in terms of when the administrative burden is placed on authorities and the continuous list, as such, might force the electoral management body to have a larger permanent and qualified staff. A civil registry is a list maintained by the public administration and it contains the names and other basic information of all citizens. States that maintain a civil registry use it to generate period, up-to-date voter lists to a relatively low cost. This system, on the other hand, requires the maintenance of a huge centralized database, and if the ministry in charge is unwilling or unable to keep it, the integrity of the electoral process could be at risk.

Further considerations for authorities and EMBs at election times concerns establishing and interpreting the basic qualifications for the eligibility of voters. The residence requirement is one of the most controversial ones because it can be easily manipulated and distorted. Furthermore, this requirement can greatly influence the size and composition of the electorate, and therefore the outcomes of the elections, especially in systems based on separate electoral districts or in polls that are closely connected to a specific geographical area (like an independence referendum).

Voter Registration activities in Sudan have been closely monitored by the international community, as part of the wider planning and management of the 2011 referendum. The preparations for the referendum in the district of Abyei have drawn the attention of the national and international actors for the strategic position of this area and since voter registration activities in this area face several challenges, mostly due to the presence of nomadic communities. Electoral experts around the world have initiated extensive debates over the voting rights of the nomadic communities and tribes around the world, and this Consolidated Reply aims to contribute to this ongoing discussion.

Summary of replies

The registration of nomadic communities is a sensible issue, and it becomes even more so when it is linked to an independence referendum, as is the case in Sudan. In the Abyei Referendum, the residency criterion was, of course, a key condition for the eligibility of voters. The experts presented a few provisions that could be adopted by governments dealing with nomadic communities, and shared their knowledge and experience with nomadic communities and tribes in other countries in the world. According to most of the experts, like Elijah Rubvuta and Frik Olivier, despite the residency issues, there is no doubt that this nomadic community in Sudan, and nomadic communities in general, have the right to participate in elections and referenda. Elijah Rubvuta affirms that denying the nomadic tribes the opportunity to register as voters on account of lack of a residential address would be infringing upon their rights. Every effort should be put in place to avail them an opportunity to have a say in the referendum.

A number of special provisions could be implemented to safeguard the voting rights of nomads and at the same time to avoid fraud. Koki Muli suggests the use of ad hoc mobile registration centers, which could be set up in strategic places designated by the electoral authorities. In this perception, nomadic communities could register and vote in “service areas” along the road, watering areas, health centers, grazing areas etc. Likewise, Frik Olivier mentions the use of mobile polling stations, which would be set up only for nomads. So called advance voting could also be a practical and effective provision, as nomadic communities could in such a process be allowed to register in certain seasons or periods of the year, according to their moving traditions. To implement this system successfully in a country such as Sudan, the electoral authorities must consider thorough logistical planning, security arrangements and voter education and information campaigns, as pointed out by Koki Muli. Elijah Rubvuta draws the attention to the importance of adapting the voter registration process to each situation and, in this case, he proposes to adopt an ad hoc voter register. To deal with the presence of nomadic communities, the electoral authorities would here have to create a “constituency-wide” register, where voters could register either with their actual residential address or with a general one of the whole area (in the case of the nomads). As a consequence, the voters’ list (register) in each polling station would be the same and voters would be allowed to cast their ballots in any of them. This system, however, requires a series of extra measures to prevent fraud since collective registration could be abused for double registration and, on voting day, double-voting. On the other side of fraud by manipulation from nomadic groups themselves, there exists also the possibility that nomadic tribes can be abused or manipulated by third-party groups for the same purpose.

The registration period for the Kuchi population is normally set to cover the period when the community travels less, and mobile registration stations are set up in consultation with Kuchi representatives. Finally on Election Day, there are polling stations designated and set up specifically for Kuchi voters.

From the "Voting by Homeless People" Consolidated Reply.
Read more

Several of replies to this question have brought to light the cases of the Kuchis in Afghanistan and the Gujars in Kashmir. In the Afghan electoral system, the Kuchis are part of a special constituency, created in addition to the other provincially-based constituencies and not defined by geographic boundaries. Once registered, a member of the Kuchi community is allowed to vote anywhere in the country (for presidential elections) or in the province (for provincial elections). In the Gujar community, on the other hand, the electoral authorities register each individual in the region where they live during winter, but in the registration forms they also include their summer locations. Basically, as Dr. Noor Mohammad notes, the Gujars are hence eligible voters in both places.

In some countries, however, nomads are not guaranteed any voting rights at all. Shahid Iqbal, refers to the Pakistan Electoral Law and explains that voters can be registered only if they are residents of a specific electoral area. Nomads are therefore excluded from the voters’ lists, while seasonal migrants can enroll in one of the two electoral districts where they live.

Conclusions

The experts did not reach any clear conclusions on the case of the nomadic communities in Abyei, but presented a series of possible measures to implement and guarantee the voting rights of all citizens. The practitioners also affirmed the importance of the context in dealing with nomadic communities and tribes. As Ben Goldsmith mentions, the electoral authorities should verify whether or not the nomadic community in question truly roams within the boundaries of Abyei or not, and act accordingly. The electoral authorities should consider special security measures for the voter registration in general in Abyei, given the sensibility of the referendum and the recent history of the region.

This reply was written together with Martin Hallberg, Thematic Network Facilitator.

Related sources

ACE Encyclopedia section Voter Registration

Consolidated reply Voting by Homeless People.

Replies and input received, with thanks, from:

• Ben Goldsmith
• Shahid Iqbal
• Jerome Leyraud
• Ola Pettersson
• Noor Mohammad
• Koki Muli
• Frik Olivier
• Rober Patterson
• Elijah Rubvuta

A similar question was posted in 2008 regarding electoral participation of homeless people in Japan. You will find a lot of useful information - for example a reply by Frik Olivier on nomad voting in Afghanistan - in the consilidated reply entitled Voting by homeless people.

Under the Pakistani Electoral law a person shall be entitled to be enrolled as a voter in an electoral area if s/he is resident in the electoral area in which s/he desires to be enrolled. With this in view Nomads should not be registered as voters as they can not claim to have any one particular place as their place of residence.

Conversely seasonal migrants, as distinct from Nomads are eligible to be enrolled, according to their preference, at any of the two places where they ordinarily reside.

Voting for Nomadic communities requires special provisions for registration and voting. In many countries where Nomadic Communities move from one area to another depending on seasons in search of water and pastures - there are often special arrangements as follows:

1. Some countries allow for and set up mobile registration centres which may be used during voting depending on the seasons - if they cant be used because the voters have moved by the elections/referendum time - mobile polling centres are introduced to follow the voters wherever they may have moved to enable them to vote wherever they are currently. This was practised in Kenya - which uses FPTP electoral system until the 1980s. Now, Nomadic communities are often disenfranchised in Kenya because they are required to vote only in designated polling stations where they are registered. As a result, political parties have resorted in transporting voters to ensure that there are voters during the elections - although not all voters get transported (though transporting of voters is an election offense!).

2. In other countries special arrangements such as advance voting is introduced to assist voters to vote at a particular time and place in advance before they move to other areas. This also depends on the seasons and movement of voters.

3. Provision can also be made to allow nomadic communities to register and vote in "service areas" for example in watering areas/holes/boreholes; health centres or clinics; grazing areas and mobile centres which become designated as such when election officials find people on the roadside.

These are all special provisions which are aimed at nomadic communities and usually are unlikely to be abused.

Since in all cases - voters cards and identity documents are usually required - it is quite easy to ascertain the identity and locality of the voter. In countries using FPTP/electoral districts/constituencies - boundaries - it is possible to designate areas where nomadic communities have established migration patterns at different times of the year depending on different seasons. In most parts of Sudan - although security could be a problem - voters were registered and allowed to vote even from IDP Camps for example in Khartoum - Omdurman and other areas where there were IDP camps. It is expected that in South Khordofan,  Darfur and South of Sudan - movements of people might also be a sensitive matter especially since only Southern Sudanese and those in Abyei can be allowed to vote - in this regard, mobile centres - in designated places can also assist as willbe the case in IDPs. Mines, insecurity and the vastness of the Sudan can also be a problem - so logistical planning, security arrangment and a lot of voter education and information can be helpful to announce to all eligible voters where registration and the voting for the referendum will take place. Usually political parties, religious institutions/organisations and civil society are often great allies in VE/VI and in reaching out to voters so that they are aware and ready when the time comes. Good luck!

As Ola mentions the situation in Afghanistan with the Kuchi community is covered in the previous consolidated reply on Voting by Homeless People. This seems to be a very relevant example for your Sudan question, as the Kuchi community do have homes, but as they are a nomadic community their homes move with them. Registration and voting facilities in Afghanistan had to be established in accordance with where the Kuchi community was at the time of these election operations.

However, the Kuchi example in Afghanistan is less useful when it comes to the question of in which constituencies such nomadic communities should be registered. In Afghanistan a special constituency was established for the Kuchis. This constituency existed in addition to the other Provincially based constituencies and was not defined by geographic boundaries.

If the nomadic community in question largely roams within the boundaries of Abyei then I would think that they should be considered legitimate residents of Abyei, even though not having a fixed place of residence. This being the case, then I would say that the standard of inclusive elections would strongly support flexible arrangements to facilitate the community's registration and voting in the referendum.

If, however, the community roams beyond the boundaries of Abyei then I would suggest that their status as 'residents' in Abyei, and therefore their right to participate in the referendum, would be more tenuous.

The example of Kuchis in Afghanistan is typical in the sense that Kuchis once registered are allowed to vote any where in the country for the Presidential vote where the entire country in a counstituency; they can vote any where in the province in the provincial council elections where entire province is a constituency.  There may be many examples of migrant populations who have been given voting rights.  Gujars in Kashmir are one such community - they migrate to grasslands in higher altitudes during summers and come down during the winters. We register them at the place where they live during the winters and also have their summer locations in the registration forms so that if elections fall during summers their voting can be organised.  Thus for all practical purposes they are voters at both the places and it looks legitimate because they have interest in governance of both the places.

In case of referendum the voters can be registered like Kuchis or Gujars but a decision has to be take as to which place they have more stakes and would be allowed to vote accordingly.  One would like to go by the declaration they make as to where they would like to belong.

Although I do not have a specific solution for your question, may I suggest you contact the Australian Electoral Commission to ask how they deal with voter registration for their Indigenous people.  Their website is: http://www.aec.gov.au/

This is an interesting situation. Although I have not had a direct experience in dealing with this, I think the following may be of relevance to the situation at hand.

Firstly, it is important to underline the Principle that ALL RESIDENTS OF ANY AREA HOLD THE SAME RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION IN ELECTIONS, and in this case, the referendum on whether to belong to the south or not is of even more importance. Denying the nomadic tribes the opportunity to register as voters on account of lack of a residential address would be infringing upon their rights.

The referendum due next year on determination of whether Abyei  should remain with the north or South is, in my view, a matter of importance to all residents of Abyei whether nomadic or not. The matter (being a referendum) should be easier than when these people had to elect a Geographical Representative – since one might be arguing on whether it is reasonable for such nomadic groups to need a representative when they may not be in permanent places.

For this situation, I see one possible solutions to help deal with the problem:-

1.       1. Adapt the Voter Register to suit the situation - As Abyei is a small district (constituency), it could be worth considering the system of having one “Constituency-wide” Register – i.e. where everyone in the Constituency can register with either their actual residential address or with one general address of the area (in the case of the nomads). The Voters Register then in all the Polling Stations would be identical, allowing for a voter to vote from any of the polling stations in the constituency. So if Abyei has 3 or 6 Constituencies, then it would have 3 or 6 Registers which will be identical and bearing all the same names of the people generally residing in the specific general address. Voters would be informed to vote from any of the polling centres closer to their residences – (or closer to where they registered from). All the polling stations in the Constituency will have to use 1 identical voters’ list (Register);

There are however, a number of conditions to be met if this system is to work and be less contentious:-

a.       The Voter Register should have security features (such as Bio-metrics – to capture finger-prints and photo-ID) to allow for detection of double-registration. The register must be clean of any double registration, and biometric data can assist in this;

b.      for The Indelible Ink should be very reliable and effective to allow for effective control of any attempt by a voter to vote more than once;

c.       Voter registration (or update of the Voter’s Register) should be done as close to the election as possible – say 4 or 3 months before so as to reduce the possibility that the nomadic groups would have moved to distant places.

[Zimbabwe (though not be a good example) used to use such a register prior to the 2008 elections, but it lacked the necessary security measures suggested above. Namibia, which has some nomadic groups, would be another example, and they use Mobile Voting Stations]

A referendum is about one easier election (or reasonable one) where the nomadic tribes can rightfully participate as they would not be voting for a Representative for particular geographic area – rather, they would be expressing their views as to where they would generally want to belong (north or south) – hence in my view, every effort should be put in place to avail them an opportunity to have a say in the referendum – they would be voting as an entire broader constituency than when it is voting for representatives.

The only real reason why countries want to 'force' people to vote at a certain point, namely point of registration, is for logistical reasons.  It is easier to know how many ballot papers and election related material needs to be sent where.

I agree with our colleagues that everyone has a right to vote, except for special cases where a person gave up their right to vote.  Nomads are not in the latter case.

One suggestion then would be let the Nomads register, but to have a field on the registration form indicating whether the Voter is a Nomad or not.  This way the logistical people will have some rough idea as to how many additional ballot paper and election materials need to be provided for at the polling stations.

If the number is perceived to be high, then it would be better to have certain points where Nomads can vote without being registered to vote at that point, something like Mobile Polling Stations.

Nomads do create a certain logistical problem and rogue voters may attempt to use this problem for political gains.  Use a flexible system where Voters knows beforehand what the conditions, exceptions and requirements about Nomads will be and go with that. 

It would be good to have the normal preventative measures for duplicate voting in place as suggested by my colleagues.

The residents of Abyei will determine their future administrative status (Art 4 of the Abye Area Referendum Act -AARA). They will have to choose between two options. They will cast their votes for either Abyie retaining its special status in the North or Abyie becoming part of Bahr-El-Ghazal in Southern Sudan (Art 6 AARA).

According to Art 24 of the AARA, a voter shall be a resident of Abyie Area, namely:

·         “Member of the Ngoc Dinka community”

·         “Other Sudanese residing in Abyei Area in accordance with the criteria of residency, as may be determined by the Commission according to section 14(1)” of the AARA.

Art 14.1 of the AARA stipulates that the “Commission shall determine the criteria of residency in the Abyei  Area in accordance with sub-section 6 (1)(b) and (8) of the Protocol on the Resolution of the Abyei Conflict to ensure and guarantee that all voters, without discrimination, enjoy the exercise of their rights to express freely their opinion in a secret referendum on self-determination …”

Sub-section 6(1)(b)of the Protocol on the Resolution of the Abyie Conflict specifies that the criteria of residency will be established by the Commission.

Considering the antagonism between Ngoc Dinka and Misseriya, the criteria of residency to be established by the Commission is going to be controversial and likely challenged by one or the other group. We are therefore looking at possible mechanisms to resolve a dispute over the verification of claims of presumed residency.  In the absence of documentary proof of residency, a possible solution is to resort to a vetting process through community leaders. However, appointment to the vetting committee (also called identifiers) is likely to be as controversial as the political dispute over the residency criteria.  The antagonism between the two communities may make the vetting committee ineffective and paralyze the registration exercise. A catch 22 situation…