Last Thursday, Labour and National presented their thoughts on the 2014 election to Parliament.
On Labour’s side, there was an inevitable and welcome move away from linking enrolment and benefit eligibility. Good, and phew.
On National’s side, the disturbing suggestions coming from Greg Hamilton are quietly dangerous for freedom of political expression in New Zealand.
First, on the supposed problem of people enrolling shortly before they vote:
National recommended that only people who were enrolled before the advance voting window should be able to vote ahead of election day.
Anyone who enrolled during the advance voting period should have to cast their vote in the polling booth on election day, Mr Hamilton said.
This, National says, is to prevent the problem of political parties not having sufficient time to do “proper scrutiny” of the roll. That’s a pretty icky sounding phrase.
What it actually does is place extra, purely administrative barriers between citizens and their right to vote. Democracies should not do that. The citizens’ rights are more important than the administrative wants of the State or of political parties. If a person is eligible to vote and goes to a proper polling place, they should be able to cast their vote. No ifs, buts, or maybes.
In the US, the Republican Party has been using these same administrative procedures to try and put a chill on voter participation, especially among people on low incomes who are also either young or from an ethnic minority. (Horror example 1. Horror example 2. Horror example 3.)
It’s no great surprise that those targeted by the Republicans tend not to vote for right-leaning parties. It’s deeply anti-democratic, and it’s a real shock to see National copying from their playbook.
If there were any doubt about what National is trying to achieve, have a look at what National suggests to combat the rise in electoral fraud rate from 0.002% to 0.004%:
National wanted voters to be required to present official identification or sign a statutory declaration at polling stations to cut down on electoral fraud.
That’s right, more pointless administrative hurdles! For the other 99.996% of us, there will be new barriers standing between us and the voting booth.
For most Kiwis, presenting a driver’s license or signing a form isn’t a big deal. But it becomes a big deal for people with low levels of formal education, or recent migrants, or those concerned about what else the State might do with their statutory declaration.
People in those groups (surprise, surprise) don’t tend to vote National. So National wants to make it harder for them to exercise their democratic rights.
Yes, the barrier is the same for everyone. But it appears higher for the people on the lower rungs of the ladder. And National knows it. It’s disgraceful.
What positive impact on the supposedly burgeoning electoral fraud rate would we see if we went with National’s suggestions?
[National’s] deputy manager Cam Cotter conceded that he could not cite instances of electoral fraud in relation to their concerns ...
Get that – no positive benefit at all. None.
But, conveniently, a side effect of the new requirements would be to make it disproportionately harder for poor folk, young folk, and recent immigrants to exercise their legitimate democratic rights.
How about freedom of political speech during an election campaign? Surely that’s sacrosanct, right?
Hamilton also proposed a shorter advance voting period of 10-14 days and tougher restrictions on campaigning where early voting is taking place.
Oh, I guess not. National wants less flexibility in how people vote, and less freedom of political speech during the final few weeks of an election campaign.
The health of our democracy depends on freedom to talk about politics. Anything that limits that freedom threatens the quality of our democracy.
I’m genuinely shocked that the National hierarchy would propose these chilling, Republican-style affronts to our democratic engagement at election time.
And I’m confident people of conscience in National - including David Farrar who laudably proposed the antithesis of Hamilton’s ideas, asking to liberalise some rules about campaigning on election day – will be quietly aghast as well.
Making suggestions for improving elections does not have to be hyper-partisan. I support David Farrar’s proposals around election day online activity, and I was grateful to have his support at the Select Committee for my suggestions to give full electoral roll access to registered third parties as well as political parties.
But if National is going to try bringing the thuggish Republican-style intimidation of left-leaning voters to our shores, they’re buying a fight against everyone who values our democracy, and the easy exercise of our rights to choose our leaders.