Glenrothes by-election marked register set to rise from the dead

A week today, starting at 10am on Monday 16th November, an act of political record keeping resurrection will commence as the lost marked register from the Glenrothes Westminster Parliamentary by-election is recreated.

The lost of the Glenrothes marked register caused more controversy than such loses usually do both because it happened at a Parliamentary by-election and because the result in that election was, to many people, a surprise.

The Goverment’s reaction to the loss of marked registers after the 2005 general election was underwhelming. As I described it in February:

In other words [the Government line is]: ‘we don’t know on what dates records were received, we haven’t made an assessment, and let’s shift the buck around a bit’. Woking’s marked register was lost in its entirety and although in other Parliamentary questions the government stuck to the line that this was the only data lost, that didn’t seem to chime with people’s experiences.

For Glenrothes, however, a special House of Commons order has been made allowing the inspection of other records which have not been lost and from which the marked register can be recreated.

The records in question are the “corresponding number lists”, which had electoral register numbers written on them as each ballot paper was handed out and at the same time as numbers were crossed off on the (now lost) marked register. Therefore the list of register numbers from these corresponding number lists can easily, if slowly, be used to recreate the marked register.

The recreated marked register will be available for public inspection in the usual way once it has been compiled.

And if you’re wondering why there are both corresponding number lists and a marked register – the former allow individual ballot papers to be traced, e.g. in the case of suspected postal vote fraud, and are therefore kept secret whilst the marked register is made public for inspection and does not have that extra tracing information.

(Thanks to Andrew Reeves for providing me with copies of the correspondence about the above.)

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Election law and News.
Advert

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarGeorge Kendall 26th Sep - 1:50am
    @John King Thanks for the comment. I've changed the page to take out the links to the "fringe of the conference" tweet, as that was...
  • User AvatarPaul Walter 25th Sep - 11:39pm
    Agreed about LBJ, Hywel. One of his big strengths was gaining votes in Congress for his bills, by hook or by crook.
  • User AvatarPaul Walter 25th Sep - 11:35pm
    Thanks Lorenzo - from October 1st, I'll be posting some more about things I noticed on my tour of the USA.
  • User AvatarFiona 25th Sep - 10:58pm
    At risk of stating the obvious, Uber has a lot going for it, or it wouldn't be popular, but they have been asked, repeatedly, to...
  • User Avatarfrankie 25th Sep - 10:56pm
    It looks like poor David will be sent home again to do his homework. I can't work out if he fails to do it hoping...
  • User AvatarOnceALibDem 25th Sep - 10:54pm
    I don't see why political parties should be able to keep (what is after all sensitive data) on people in perpetuity. There is also an...