APPENDIX 3
Memorandum submitted by the Socialist
Democratic Labour Party
REGISTRATION
1. The SDLP welcomes the opportunity to
present evidence on the new electoral registration process in
Northern Ireland and the conduct of the 2003 Assembly Elections.
2. The SDLP met with the Electoral Commission,
on 12 March 2004, as part of their review of the Electoral Fraud
Act.
3. The SDLP campaigned for decades for legislation
to combat electoral fraud.
4. The SDLP supported the introduction of
the Electoral Fraud Act to Northern Ireland.
At the time SDLP Justice Spokesperson Alex Attwood
MLA, said:
"It is essential that the right to vote
is protected and abuse of that right suppressed. These new measures
need to be carefully monitored to ensure that they achieve both
these objectives."
5. The SDLP welcomes the fact that research
undertaken by the Electoral Commission shows that there is a high
level of public support for the new electoral fraud legislation.
"72% of a representative sample of the Northern
Ireland population either strongly agreed or tended to agree that
the new system would reduce electoral fraud."[1]
6. The SDLP believes that the Assembly Elections
in November 2003 were probably the cleanest and fairest elections
ever in Northern Ireland.
REGISTRATION
7. The SDLP is concerned that the number
of people registered to vote dropped in both December 2002 and
February 2004.
8. The SDLP notes that that the February
2004 Register of Electors shows a reduction of 28,391 on the September
2003 Register.[2]
9. The SDLP notes that in respect of the
last household register in 2001 the Electoral Commission concluded
that the registration rate of "95.5% was likely to have been
an overestimate of the actual number of eligible persons registered
to vote."[3]
Indeed, the first register produced under the
individual registration system (December 2002) suggests that the
numbers on the register as a proportion of the 18+ population
was approximately 86%.
10. In the 2003 Assembly Elections, the
SDLP public representatives and members encountered a number of
difficulties with the new registration process in advance of the
2003 Assembly Elections. The Party encountered people from areas
of acute need, elderly persons and people with disabilities who
were not on the register.
11. In the polling station, on the day of
the election, voters were confused over the September 2002 and
September 2003 registration date.
12. The SDLP continues to have deep concerns
that the new registration process tended to have an adverse impact
on disadvantaged, marginalised and hard-to-reach groups. Young
people and students, people with learning disabilities and other
forms of disability, and those living in areas of high social
deprivation were all less likely to be registered.
13. Both the Electoral Commission and Electoral
office have taken steps to promote and advertise the registration
process. These efforts need to be intensified.
14. The SDLP also believes it is necessary
to review and modernise the legislation to ensure the right to
vote is protected and abuse of that is suppressed.
15. The SDLP would support a change to the
legislation to allow for the full individual registration process
to be conducted once every two or three years.
This would enable the Electoral Office to concentrate
their resources and time in targeting those people, who are not
on the register, especially those from disadvantaged communities.
16. The SDLP also suggests that the cycle
for the annual canvass does not have to be uniform. The Electoral
Office may wish to concentrate their resources by conducting an
annual canvass in a number of constituencies in one year and in
other constituencies in other years, especially if there is a
pattern of under-registration in certain constituencies.
17. Individuals should be made aware that
there credit rating might be affected if their name is not on
the electoral register.
18. The SDLP would support any measures
that would ensure registration forms were more widely available.
ROLLING REGISTRATION
19. The SDLP received a number of complaints
about the necessity of calling people to electoral court hearings
who have applied under rolling registration. The question arises
about the need for electoral court hearings if the personal identifiers
provide a check against electoral fraud.
20. The SDLP would support a review of the
electoral court procedure under rolling registration.
21. The SDLP suggests that the Chief Electoral
Officer should retain a reserved authority, which will allow him
the powers to investigate rolling registration applications if
he is concerned about a pattern developing.
ELECTORAL IDENTIFICATION
22. Many constituencies reported that there
were problems with ID cards. Voters indicated that although they
had submitted their details for ID cards, they had not received
their cards in time for the Election.
23. Voters believed the ID process was too
slow.
24. Some voters enquired why the blue pass
for disabled people and blind pass were not valid forms of identification.
25. The SDLP believes that continued efforts
should be made to maximise awareness of the identification requirements.
The Electoral Commission should consider running a road show in
schools and colleges.
ELECTION DAY—POLLING
STATIONS
26. There were a number of complaints from
constituencies about personation agents taking information out
of the polling stations or using mobile phones to text information.
The SDLP believes that the presiding officers should ensure that
no information is taken from the polling stations. The use of
mobile phones should be prohibited.
Case Study 1
In the Castlewellan polling station, in South
Down, there were concerns that SF polling clerks were removing
information from the polling station. After concerns were expressed
material was seized and held.
The SDLP made a formal complaint to the Electoral
Office on 8 December 2003. The EO stated on 2 January 2004 that
no formal complaint had been made against the polling agent.
The EO admitted there had been several incidents
on the day of the election and stated "The Senior Presiding
Officer at that polling station was threatened and intimidated
to such an extent that she has been taking extra personal safety
precautions ever since"
27. There were complaints from political
representatives and voters that canvassers were in too close proximity
to the polling station. Voters felt intimidated by the numbers
of people canvassing outside polling station.
28. The SDLP believes that political parties
should be prohibited from canvassing within 100 yards of a polling
station.
29. The staff working in polling stations
should be provided with a comprehensive training programme.
LOCATION OF
POLLING STATIONS
30. A number of constituencies expressed
concern that polling stations did not cater for the disabled.
31. There were also concerns about the location
of polling stations at some sectarian interfaces. The Electoral
Office should afford more time for parties to consider the location
of polling stations.
PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES
32. The SDLP is concerned about the issue
of access raised by the Disability Action report into the 2003
Assembly Elections.[4]
33. The SDLP notes that Mencap has highlighted
several potential barriers to the voting process for people with
a learning disability.
34. There is a lack of knowledge by people
with a learning disability about their right to vote.
35. There is little assistance given to
parents/carers to help them making a decision about their charge's
competence to vote. The letter, which the area electoral officer
sends to parents/carers of people with learning difficulty, to
follow up on the declaration in the registration form, is also
quite negative.
36. There should be a specific promotional
campaign targeted at people with a learning disability and their
families and carers.
37. People with a learning disability may
also require additional assistance to cast their votes.
38. There is a lack of accessible transport
to and from polling stations creates an additional barrier.
POLICING THE
ELECTION
39. There were serious concerns about the
decision by the police to deploy only mobile units outside polling
stations. The SDLP believe that the police should be located at
each polling station.
THE COUNT
40. A number of constituencies complained
that the count was too slow.
41. There were complaints that there were
no tallies of the postal ballot papers permitted at the Dromore
count in South Down.
42. Candidates and election agents were
not allowed to inspect the "spoiled votes" at the Dromore
count.
43. A number of constituencies said there
was inadequate space for the appointed representatives, candidates,
press and electoral officials at the count centres
44. Candidates expressed concern that there
was no communication system to call all candidates to the meeting
room with officials. As a result, in certain count centres, declarations
were not made in the presence of all the relevant candidates.
ELECTORAL OFFICE
45. There is a concern that on occasions
that some staff in the Electoral Office take a confrontational
approach to their dealings with political parties. Programmes
should be developed to improve understanding of the respective
roles and functions of both the Electoral Commission the Electoral
Office and political parties.
46. The SDLP is also concerned that the
Northern Ireland Office is considering reducing the level of financial
support to the Electoral Office. The SDLP believes the Electoral
Office need a stable level of financial support to meet the additional
requirements of the Electoral Office.
March 2004
1 The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002:
An assessment of its first year in operation The Electoral Commission. Back
2
Figures from the NI Electoral Office. Back
3
The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002: An assessment
of its first year in operation The Electoral Commission. Back
4
Disability Action NI was commissioned by the Electoral Commission
to undertake an access audit. Back
| 
