Spring is in the air, which means it must soon be time for local government elections. But will the spectre of possible electoral fraud hang over them this May?
The issue has been brought into focus again by recent comments made by election commissioner Richard Mawrey QC to the BBC. He has suggested that the availability of postal voting on demand leaves the electoral system wide open to fraud and is ‘unviable’. So why does he hold that view?
In Ali v Bashir [2013] EWHC 2572 (QB) he considered an election petition, which challenged the outcome of the election in a ward in Worthing that was won by the Liberal Democrat candidate by 16 votes.
He found that there was widespread false registration and false votes cast, both personally and by post.
He declared the election void and suggested that the UK’s electoral system is ‘shambolic’.
In his judgment, Mawrey is critical of politicians of all political hues for their failure to take the issue seriously and reform the system to make fraud more difficult. He noted that little had changed following his determination of similar cases in Birmingham in 2004 and Slough in 2007.
The Electoral Commission produced a report on electoral fraud in January 2014. This concluded that while there had been some high profile cases there was no evidence of widespread and systemic fraud.
The main recommendation made was a change in the law to require voters to produce ID at polling stations. However, it suggested that any restrictions on postal voting would punish innocent voters.
It is unsurprising, then, that the Electoral Commission immediately rejected Mawrey’s comments.
There have also been strong rebuttals from politicians from the main political parties. Minister for cities Greg Clark and Graham Allen MP have both been quoted as suggesting that the problem was exaggerated and postal votes were an important means of ensuring that people were able to vote.
This is the nub of the issue: are politicians more concerned about making it easier for people to vote than they are about ensuring that the system is not open to abuse? The law has been changed for the upcoming elections so that any person in a queue at a polling station at 10.00pm is entitled to be given a ballot.
This follows the controversy at the general election in 2010 when people in queues were unable to vote as polling stations closed.
But is the 15 hours that polling stations are open really not long enough for people to be able to cast their vote comfortably? And, by allowing postal vote on demand when we have already seen a number of proven cases where this has been abused, are we shifting the balance too far in favour of making it easy for the voter?
The introduction of individual voter registration will, the Electoral Commission claims, improve the integrity of the system. However, it will be interesting to see the impact that has on numbers on the register and whether politicians will stick with it if the numbers reduce significantly.
How worried should we be about the electoral system in this country? And, how confident can we be that the elections this May will be free and fair? Perhaps the final word on whether the system needs reform should go to Ray Morgan the returning officer in Worthing who has been quoted as saying: ‘I don’t think any election that I’ve personally officiated over since 2006 has been totally fair and honest.’
Simon Goacher is head of Weightmans’ local government team.
