The Halifax Courier reports:
A FORMER Calderdale councillor is set to stand trial for alleged vote rigging.
Mohammed Saghir, 63, of Gibbet Street, Halifax, has denied five charges of rigging proxy votes.
He is alleged to have applied for proxy votes under different names during the local elections in April 2008.
Saghir was elected as a Conservative councillor for St John’s, now Park ward, in 2000.
This is rather a hotspot for election fraud, proved or alleged, for this is what Mohammed Saghir’s opponents were up to in the same election:
TWO cousins of ex-councillor Mohammed Najib voted for him under false names, a court heard.
Saeed Aslam, 21, and Gularif Bostan, 27, admitted impersonating other people when they voted in the Calderdale Council elections on May 1, 2008…
Mr Najib lost his seat in Park ward last year after 22 years. He was arrested and questioned over election fraud but released without charge.
Aslam, of Vulcan Close, Flatts, Dewsbury, and Bostan, of Savile Grove, Savile Town, Dewsbury, were sentenced to 12 months’ community service with 300 hours of unpaid work and £60 costs. (Halifax Courier)
And there’s more, because in the previous year this happened:
A HALIFAX election candidate who failed to declare his criminal record has appeared in court.
Sajid Mehmood, 36, of Saxon Street, off Hanson Lane, Halifax, admitted making a false statement on nomination papers.
He stood for the Respect Party in Park ward, Halifax, in council elections in May. (Halifax Courier)
It’s because of the (thankfully rare) hot-spots like this that I’ve argued in the past there should be scope for imposing extra legal safeguards against electoral fraud if an area’s track record justifies it. For example, extra safeguards against impersonation would come with a cost – both financial and in terms of voter convenience. But if an area has a track record of attempts to rig elections, it would be sensible to allow extra safeguards to be introduced (with appropriate safeguards so it doesn’t become just a political pawn in a game of ‘depress your opponent’s turnout’).
2 Comments
I agree that there should be the option for extra safeguards to be introduced, but I think we should be clear about what standard needs to breached before they we do so.
However there must be some concerns about the definition of ‘area’. If it is too loose the safeguards could prove overly intrusive and burdensome, but if it is too tight the best intentioned efforts may fail to prevent some bad practices. Local knowledge will be vital, so the authorities will need to demonstrate they have listened to all sides.
I also feel there is some responsibility on the authorities to do more to actively engage candidates and agents in education about the electoral process, as the somewhat arcane bureaucratic methods currently create ample opportunity for individuals to disassociate themselves from what they are doing.
Electoral fraud in all its’ guises makes me absolutely livid.
Apart from having seen it first-hand before I ever got involved in politics it completely undermines the possibility of good decision-making.
My personal feeling is that a designated national party figure should be compelled to publicly account for the behaviour of their party members in some sort of constitutional court, as such a crime demonstrates an inability to set the proper example which their supporters are assumed and expected to follow – so in this case, as it occurred since he took over, I would be very interested to hear David Cameron explain it away and understand what he has personally done to prevent another occurrence in future.
How you arrive at power in many ways determines what you can do with it.
Ah, the wonder that is Park ward. I haven’t campaigned there directly yet (done the Asian area in the ward next door), so can’t claim any local knowledge, but the politics within the community confuse me completely. Didn’t realize it used to be a Tory ward though, but then haven’t gone through the voting data for Halifax constituency fully yet.