Memorandum by Southampton City Council
(PVF 10)
Thank you for your letter of 24 June 2004 inviting
comments on the recent elections.
As the letter and the questions have arrived
on my desk on the same date that you requested responses by, my
comments are limited to my own personal views as the City Council's
Returning Officer for the local elections and the Local Regional
Returning Officer for the European elections in Southampton. I
was also the Deputy Regional Returning Officer for the South-East,
but fortunately for me, Steve Lake did not need to call upon my
services!
GENERAL
1. The publishing of the statutory instruments
was indeed too late. Organisation of elections is a huge logistical
exercise and considerable pre-planning is required to enable the
process to run efficiently and to the benefit of the elector.
Arrangements relating to staff appointments and stationery etc
were delayed until early April due to the uncertainty. I will
say a few more words later about the nature and size of the European
ballot paper, but by its very nature, the size of the European
ballot paper created additional burdens. Many contractors were
unable to cope with the size. Administrators had to re-order ballot
boxes and polling booths had insufficient shelf space for the
paper to be viewed and marked in the normal way.
2. The short timescale between nominations
closedown and the despatch of postal votes issue. The timescale
is shortened further in local elections to take account of the
withdrawal period. The organisation of postal votes has become
the most resource hungry process in election preparation. Adequate
time must be set aside and a review of the timetable is essential.
3. I cannot comment on this aspect not being
a pilot region.
4. I have received no allegations of fraud
locally although press reports suggest that public confidence
in the process was seriously dented.
PRINTING AND
DISSEMINATION
5-9 I am not in a position to comment on
these issues.
VOTING PRACTICALITIES
AND RETURNS
10. (a) There is regular objection to this
necessity and without doubt the highest percentage of rejected
ballot papers at postal vote opening is due to incomplete or incorrect
declarations of identity. Some electors state they have no-one
to witness. Others object to a third party requirement. Some votes
are rejected simply because a witness will sign and include their
address but fail (or do not see the need) to print their name.
(b)
As mentioned in 1 above the size of the European
ballot paper caused problems, not only in polling stations but
also in postal vote preparation. There was little point including
the names of candidates. These names could have been displayed
in the polling booth "Notice to Voters". There is no
doubt that, because we had a combined election in Southampton,
ie a local and European ballot, and the local paper involved people
voting for their candidate (albeit that they were all members
of a registered political party) whereas for the European ballot
paper a closed list was used, caused considerable confusion, as
many voters wished to vote for a particular candidate in that
list. The very nature, therefore, of the ballot paper containing
the list of all the candidates caused confusion amongst electors
as to what they were voting for and why, and whilst one, of course,
ensured that one's polling station staff went through the processes
as carefully as possible with voters, the possibility of this
level of confusion either causing voters to vote incorrectly or
to not vote (and we had a large number of unmarked European ballot
papers) cannot be discounted. From an administrative perspective,
election staff had particular problems in dealing with large quantities
of ballot papers. Ballot boxes became difficult to manoeuvre and
storage became an issue.
(c)
The postal vote pack is confusing. The double
envelope system provides an element of security yet confuses some
electors. The declaration of identity is complex and user un-friendly.
A bullet point process document is preferable.
11. (a) 112
12. Turnout increased from 25% in 1999 to
31%.
13. N/A
COST AND
RESOURCES
14. (a) Five additional staff were recruited
to undertake the preparation stages of postal vote issue and opening
at a cost of £1,750.
(b)
Existing staff hours were in the region of
+ 100 at a cost of £2,500 (approx).
15. At this stage it is not possible to
provide an accurate estimate of cost although it is likely to
be in the region of £125,000 for the Southampton Counting
Area.
16. N/A
A further point that I think you need to bear
in mind is the practice that at least one of the political parties
adopted at a national level which, whilst I am not suggesting
anything improper happened, did cause considerable practical difficulties.
My understanding is that Conservative Central
Office conducted a campaign to increase applications to vote by
post. Clearly that is entirely right and proper, but what did
cause concern was that the applications were being returned to
their offices. Again, I stress that nothing improper was happening
to the application forms, but it should have been returned to
the Electoral Registration Officer, because during the course
of the election this year a batch of almost 1,000 applications
came into my office via the local Conservative Office which, according
to their agent, had been sent down from Conservative Central Office.
Despite the fact that this was on the legal point of the shutdown
date for amendments to existing records, some of these applications
were dated mid-April. This was reflected in other authorities
around us and, I presume, was a national picture. Some of these
applications were wrong, which left us with precious little time
to get them sorted out by the elector in time for the final close-down
on 2 June 2004, particularly given that there was a bank holiday
in between.
Therefore, in looking at practice and procedure
relating to the conduct of postal ballots, I do believe that this
is an issue that needs to be addressed so there is clarity and
so that, for whatever reason, no elector either loses the right
to vote or loses their vote through an administrative system that
in some way prejudices them, whatever anyone's good intentions
might have been in this case.
I hope these comments are of assistance to you.
Please do not hesitate to come back to me if you have any questions.
Mark R Heath
Solicitor to the Council & Returning Officer
| 
