This question was posed by Anna Sólyom, Project manager at the Secretariat of the Association of European Election Officials (ACEEEO)

Original Question:

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 Sólyom

ACEEEO Secretariat

Introduction:

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.[1] 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 Responses

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. An emblematic example is discussed by Koki Muli, who mentions the case of Kenya where political parties were reported to have visited nomadic tribes’ polling stations, and even been seen driving voters to those stations to enable them to vote in parties’ favor.

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,. 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.