Postal ballots are not the same as postal vote application forms

The Guardian today seems to confuse application forms for postal votes with the actual ballot papers that postal voters receive:

At the weekend David Monks, head of elections for the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, called for a ban on political parties handling postal votes amid fears that activists are collecting ballot papers before forwarding them on in order to record the results in their canvassing process. This breaches a national code of conduct, but is not illegal.

Activists taking postal ballot papers and then recording the voting intention from them would leave them open to legal action (e.g. undue influence – if they are getting people to hand over ballot papers without them being sealed in envelopes – or a range of offences if they are taking envelopes and opening them).

However, an application form for a postal vote is another matter. People from all parties hand out these forms and then collect them in or ask them to be mailed back to their local address before then passing them on to the council. This is legal – and also is not a breach of the national code of conduct. In fact, the code lays down a deadline for how quickly such forms should be passed on.

Why do some places do this? There’s a range of reasons including some councils don’t have a freepost return address and some councils are extremely slow in publishing list of postal voters (so you can’t check if someone has successfully returned a form or whether something may have got lost in the post). It’s a shame that the returning officer profession is often so reluctant to face up to how it is the poor performance of some of its members that helps explains why people without any corrupt intent whatsoever take this approach.

As a basic principle the difference between an application form and a postal ballot paper is pretty clear Рthough curiously The Guardian is by no means the first to mix the two together.

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

2 Comments

  • Martin Land 3rd May '10 - 2:45pm

    David Monks is my returning officer and is quite right to raise this matter if it is indeed taking place.

    I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be so foolish given the strict nature of the law in this area.

    It would help if journalists could get their facts right though!

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

  • Fiona
    All good stuff - I can't disagree with any of it. It would be fantastic if politicians could put aside tribal bickering and posturing and got on with the stuff ...
  • John Marriott
    Addiction to drugs is an illness. It should not be treated as a crime. The current method of tackling the problem has been an abject failure. We need to decrimi...
  • TonyH
    I'm confused. For a party they constantly say is finished and irrelevant and an MSP who they say is a nobody, why devote an entire front page to us....? Politi...
  • Cassie
    I had the 'pleasure' of working with The National for a couple of years (circa 2015). I can confirm from my personal experience that no, they were not interest...
  • Brad Barrows
    It is a pity that Alex Cole-Hamilton has chosen to ignore the fact drug laws have been reserved to Westminster - he should have been bold and called for those p...