Identifying Data Sources
The initial step in developing a civil registry is to conduct an assessment of the current state of data
collection that will form part of the registry. In some cases, the existing sources of data are quite
suitable so that efforts can focus on transferring the appropriate data to the election authority.
The Swedish Example
The development of the population register in Sweden illustrates the fact that this change may
come about through a rather fluid and incremental process. Population registration in Sweden
dates to the sixteenth century, and from the beginning it was dealt with by the church. The earliest
reference to the maintenance of parish registers was in 1571 and Sweden s oldest existing parish
register dates to the beginning of the seventeenth century. The first national directive concerning
parish registration came in 1686 when priests were assigned the task of maintaining so-called
catechetical interview records for the whole population.
The 1946 population registration reform brought about the introduction of personal identity
numbers. The population registration process became a means of facilitating the collection of
taxes, checking tax returns, maintaining social statistics, and regulating the labour market.
Electoral Data Processing (EDP) was introduced into the population registration process in the
1960s and from that time the tax authorities were responsible for the distribution of information to
other authorities. In 1991 the responsibility for population registration was transferred from the
parish offices of the Church of Sweden to the tax administration. Information from the manual
registers in 9 million so-called personal files (each file contained on average 350 characters) was
then registered into 131 local databases, one for each local tax authority.
The Local Authority
In many cases, the civil registry is part of a local government responsibility and is initiated with
birth registrations. When even these basic data are not available, it is necessary to organise a data
collection initiative to generate the data. When the latter is used, the registration drive for a civil
registry is similar to the procedures used in compiling an initial continuous voters list (see
Logistical Planning for Initial Registration) or a periodic voters list (see Legal and Administrative Framework).
The key difference between the civil registry and the continuous and periodic lists is that following
the initial registration, the civil registry and continuous list continue to use the data gathered initially
as the backbone of the list, focussing subsequently on the methods of verifying the accuracy of the
data and updating the list on a regular basis. The key difference between the civil registry and the
continuous list is that the latter is focussed solely on electoral data and is used for electoral
purposes. In contrast, the civil register can be used for a variety of purposes, such as maintaining
basic population data, tracking the use of governmental support services and their effect, taxation
records, compulsory military services, and others. Because these basic data are gathered and
maintained for these various purposes, they can also be used for electoral purposes.
Civil Registry as the Key to Civil Life
A civil registry provides, at any given moment, a certifiably valid voters list that can be used for an
election. The norm is that participation in the civil registry is mandatory, whereas for the
continuous list it is usually voluntary, unless, as in Australia, the vote itself is mandatory. In such a
case, inclusion on the register also is mandatory. Because the civil register has multiple uses,
exclusion from the civil registry means not only is that person deprived of voting, but he or she is
effectively excluded from many aspects of social life. Indeed, Dr. Felipe Gonzalez Roura of the
National Electoral Court of Argentina, went so far as to characterise exclusion from the civil
registry as a form of civic death:
...aside from the purely civic motivations of
exercising the right to vote and fulfilling the obligation of military service, anyone who fails to
comply with this obligation does not have an updated identity document and suffers a kind of civic
death. Such a person cannot work legally, vote, or carry out almost any transaction. He cannot
leave the country, register in any institution of learning, or collect social benefits and so
on.95
Thus, in terms of both its scope and centrality to public life, the civil
registry has a significance that simply is not matched by the continuous list of voters. In Sweden,
for example, each resident must be registered in the population register. The voting list is compiled
from the population register. All persons entitled to vote are listed in the voting list. A person
cannot be excluded even if so desired.
The State's Capacity
Planning for the civil registry should be conducted with an appreciation of its central public
purposes. Because it is typically a compulsory part of civic life, there must be recognition that the
state plays a leading role in supporting the development and maintenance of the civil registry. This
implies that the state has a sufficient operational infrastructure to both gather the civil registry data
and to maintain it. It does not imply a requirement for high technology computerized equipment,
because the government of Argentina was able to maintain its civil registry on more than 30 million
people using simple file cards. However, management of the amount of data typically included in
a civil registry is greatly facilitated by computerized records.
The Responsibility of the Citizen
Although the state assumes considerable responsibility for maintaining the civil registry, this should
not be seen as an excuse for inaction among the citizenry. Quite the opposite. Because inclusion
on the civil registry is normally mandatory, there may be several instances in which citizens must
initiate contact with the state in the development and maintenance of the civil registry. In
Argentina, parents must register their children on the National Register of Persons within thirty
days of birth, and each person must update personal identification at age sixteen, under penalty of
a fine.96 Furthermore, as in Denmark, it is common to require citizens to report change
in address within thirty days (or some similarly short period) of moving.97 The
differences between the civil registry and the other types of voter registration in this regard are
obvious. With the periodic list, voters must register anew at each election. Even with the
continuous list, in many countries the voter remains validly registered for only a certain period of
time, after which he or she must either renew their voter identification card, or re-register. Not so
with the civil registry, in which one's registration to vote never expires, unless there is express
cause for it to do so.
Identification Number: The Instrument that Binds
When one conceptualizes the civil registry as a single list used for multiple purposes, or as multiple
databases shared for multiple purposes, the common element is the importance of sharing
information across agencies or departments, or across functions in a single agency. To facilitate
this sharing, there is a need for an instrument that links databases or administrative units. This
instrument is the identification number. Virtually all systems using the civil registry rely on a
single, life-long number, acquired either at birth through an initial civil registration, or at the time
of registering as an adult citizen (usually between sixteen and twenty-one years of age), which acts
as the glue that unites the various databases used in the registry. The use of a single personal
identification number normally makes the use of a voter card carried by the citizen redundant,
because unique identifying records can be stored centrally, all linked through the identification
number. This feature of civil registries has the effect of eliminating the need to send voter
registration cards in the period preceding an election, an obvious cost-saving measure.
The Election Authority
From an operational perspective, a variety of options exist for the type of election authority that
can exist with a civil registry. When democratic practice is well-entrenched, as for example in
Sweden, it is acceptable to locate the election authority within a governmental department, such as
the tax office. Even in this instance, however, the election authority would normally be a separate
administrative unit within the ministry. When democratic practice is not so well established,
placing the authority for the election administration under the authority of the executive branch of
government is clearly inappropriate. The key question to ask is where should the election authority
be placed to ensure it can function as an independent check on the validity of the data used for
voter registration. The answer varies from one context to another.
