article
Ballot box fraud
19 April 2010
Electoral fraud and vote rigging is often seen as the exclusive
province of certain countries south of the equator, but recent
history shows us that it is just as possible in developed countries
like our own.
The phrase electoral fraud is apt to cover a number of criminal
offences, all of which are committed with the aim of changing the
end result of a poll. Although electoral fraud is difficult to
effectively police, it is estimated that between 2000 and 2006 in
the UK alone around 2,000 illegal ballots were cast, and there were
42 criminal convictions for electoral fraud offences.
Concern about election fraud has increased in recent years due
to the availability of postal and proxy voting. Although these
methods of voting have been promoted as a way to increase voter
turnout, the act of removing the polling process from the polling
booth carries several fraud risks. The voting process is no longer
secret, additional voting forms can be forged, the voting form can
be intercepted, and a person’s vote altered. Fraud is also more
common within communities where there are people who are vulnerable
to deception or third party influence, such as those with limited
language or literacy skills.
Electoral fraud offences include bribery, treating of a voter,
undue influence of a voter, personation, (i.e. illegitimately
voting for someone else), multiple voting, supplying false
information and making a false application to vote by post or by
proxy. Aiding or abetting any of these offences is also a crime. It
is also an offence for a Registration Officer, Returning Officer or
Presiding Officer to breach their official duty without reasonable
cause.
If you get caught up in electoral fraud, the penalties range
from fines (possibly thousands of pounds), to prison sentences of
up to two years.
Notably, it is the first General Election since the Fraud Act
2006 came into force. The Fraud Act is very widely drafted and
would cover the situation where a false statement is dishonestly
made, with a view to making a personal gain. The penalties for
fraud are potentially much higher than for the electoral fraud
offences.
Another big deterrent to would-be fraudsters is that, upon a
complaint of electoral fraud, a Court may quash the result of an
election – which is exactly what happened to two local council
elections in Birmingham in 2004, when Judge Richard Mawrey decided
that there had been systematic, large-scale postal
vote-rigging.
Rightly, the Electoral Commission takes the view that prevention
of electoral fraud is better than prosecution after the fact. There
are a number of tell-tale signs for which electoral officers should
remain vigilant.
As an example, in Birmingham in 2004, correction fluid was used
to white-out votes for certain parties, with crosses then placed
next to the names of the other candidates instead. People who
turned up to vote in person were surprised to learn that they had
already voted, and they were turned away. During the count, three
boxes were found, containing 1,700 postal votes. Every one of these
forms seemed to have been completed in the same handwriting, with
the same blue pen, and every vote was for the same party.
There are also a number of simple procedures which Electoral
Commission Guidance recommends should be put in place, in addition
to new safeguards and duties on Electoral Registration Officers and
Returning Officers which were introduced by the Electoral
Administration Act 2006.
There is now a marked register of postal votes received, and
Returning Officers are required to compile separate lists of
unmatched postal voting statements and unmatched ballot papers.
Also, postal voters have had to state their name and date of birth,
and provide a sample signature when applying. These can be verified
against their vote by Returning Officers, and Returning Officers
must check at least 20% of postal votes (and will want to check
100% if possible).
Returning Officers are encouraged to provide the Presiding
Officer at each polling station with a form on which to record
details of any elector arriving to vote who is registered as a
postal voter, with the voters encouraged to sign the register as
evidence. Similarly, the Returning Officer should maintain a record
of electors who claim not to have voted by post/proxy, although
official records show them as having done so. Election officials
will monitor the instances of new applications for postal votes
that ask for the ballot papers to be sent to an address other than
where the elector is registered.
Candidates, their election agents and polling agents may enter
polling stations to vote and to observe proceedings. But they
cannot interfere with the voting process, nor influence voters, and
if such action takes place the Presiding Officer can ask for them
to be excluded. The Presiding Officer will not allow large groups
of a candidate’s supporters or detractors to gather in the environs
of the polling station and the Returning Officer will not allow any
campaign activity such as the display and distribution of election
material to be undertaken in the polling station itself.
Voters have been urged to contact the police if anyone tries to
“help” them with their postal vote against their will, or force
them to hand over their postal vote. Similarly, where an incident
occurs inside or near a polling station that a Presiding Officer
believes may constitute an offence, they should consider calling
the police.
High profile prosecutions in Birmingham and Peterborough in
2004, and the controls put in place by the Electoral Administration
Act 2006, might have reduced the likelihood of fraud. The May 2008
local elections were free from major incident, although there were
still 103 cases of alleged electoral malpractice reported to the
Electoral Commission. However, with a General Election looming, and
the outcome of a hung parliament a genuine possibility, there is
surely no reason to relax our vigilance.
This article was first
published by www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
save to PDF