The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right of every citizen to vote and participate in public affairs. Restrictions to this fundamental principle are, according to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 25 on the right to vote, “subject only to reasonable restrictions". Common circumstances when the right to vote might be denied to a person could include instances such as: that the person had not attained the legal age of majority; that the person was resident in but not a national of the state where the elections were taking place; on the grounds of mental incapacity; or on the grounds of criminal conviction for a serious crime. Civil servants or officials deemed as holding crucial state-related functions such as the police and/or military might also be prohibited to partake in elections.
Furthermore, in Canada both the Chief Electoral Officer and his or her deputy are not entitled to vote. The argument for denying this right is that the electoral administration cannot under any circumstance be perceived to be deliberately influencing the process to the advantage of one or more contestants. Against a similar background, returning officers are not allowed to vote in Mauritius, while in Jamaica the Director of Elections is forbidden by legislation to vote.
The relevance of these legal exceptions to the universal right to vote is contested by the argument that the vote is the least powerful among all the tools in a Chief Electoral Commissioner’s, or other high ranking EMB official’s, possession. In other words, if a top EMB official would like to unduly influence the electoral process, there are many more powerful ways of doing this than through using his or her single vote. In this light, denying officials the vote could be seen as ineffective. On the other hand, the symbolic value of denying the Chief Electoral Commissioner the vote could have value in terms of signalling and communicating to citizens the impartiality and professionalism of the electoral administration, and as such be considered to be efficient and justifiable. In your opinion, is it suitable to prohibit leading electoral officials from voting?
N.B. The views of members of the ACE Practitioners' Network on this question can be read in the consolidated reply: 'Limited voting rights for electoral officials?'
Voting rights for electoral officials
Transparence is as important as independency - to look like independent on a non transparent basis is surely worse than to be known as committed and recognized as acting independently and with equity.