Latest news with #ElectoralAmendmentBill
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Voting Reforms, Prisoner Bans And Enrolment Changes - What You Need To Know About The Electoral Amendment Bill
Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. What the bill is The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. You will no longer be able to enrol to vote on Election Day Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. What are those special votes again? Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes. Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." If you're in prison serving a sentence, you'll no longer be able to vote, period The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back. "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Does this all make it harder for people to vote? Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report, Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying"frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report. Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." Political donation changes The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. What is treating, and why are they cracking down on it? Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed. The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. What's next? The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint.
Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Electoral Amendment Bill passes first hurdle
Legislation banning prisoner and same-day voting has passed its first reading. The House heard spirited speeches for and against the controversial electoral law changes today. The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to "treating" (such as offering free food) on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the system was strong but needed "constant maintenance". "Confidence in the Electoral Commission has fallen in recent years, and we know the system has come under significant strain. "This bill overhauls a number of our dated and unsustainable electoral laws. The package of amendments will strengthen the system, helping to deliver timelier election results, manage the costs, clarify rules, and provide more efficient services to voters." Same-day voting did make it easier for some people to vote, but it also removed the incentive for people to get enrolled before the election, he said. "We had the Electoral Commission, on one hand, with one message saying, 'Get enrolled; get enrolled', and they were funded with many millions of dollars to encourage people to enrol, which the law says you should do; but, on the other hand, they were also saying, 'By the way, don't bother, because you can just rock up on election day and vote'. "More people heard the second message than heard the first message. As a result, more and more people were turning up and enrolling when they voted. That's led to more and more special votes and pressure on the count." Goldsmith said he had received advice that the final count, which took three weeks in the 2023 general election, could take even longer in future elections. Labour's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said it was a dark day for democracy, arguing the changes would make it harder for people to vote. "Politicians should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder. That's how we make sure that everybody's voice is heard, that everyone gets a say, and that this democracy - this Parliament - is truly representative. Webb pointed to Attorney-General Judith Collins' report that found the proposals were inconsistent with people's rights as further reason the legislation should be scrapped. "The Attorney-General, frankly, slated this bill. I have never seen an Attorney-General's report which is so bluntly vicious and damning, saying things like 'freezing registration earlier in the voting period has the potential to harm confidence and trust'." ACT Party justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said shifting the enrolment deadline from the day of the election to 13 days before was a "modest change". "Voting in a democracy such as ours does come with some responsibilities, and it's one of those responsibilities to actually be on the electoral roll - that's a legal requirement. "If you can't be bothered doing that within a short period before an election, you've really got to question whether you have a commitment to being a participant in our democracy." Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said it was already clear the bill would not achieve what its proponents were promising. "This bill proposes the exact opposite of a modern and robust, effective democracy, because it intentionally seeks to deny entire groups of people and communities from having easier access to be able to enrol and to be able to vote, while at the same time it is shifting the threshold for donations to be declared." Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the changes were cynical. "It's not a coincidence that the very communities who would be silenced are the same communities that wouldn't vote for this government, and probably the same communities that made up the netballers on the weekend. "They say they're fixing democracy, but let's remember: this is the same government that has abolished Māori wards, introduced the Treaty Principles Bill, dismantled co-governance, Te Aka Whai Ora. And we know, again, why they do not want to see 16-year-olds voting." The legislation is now off to select committee, having passed with support from coalition partners National, ACT and New Zealand First.
RNZ News
20 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Voting reforms, prisoner bans and enrolment changes - What you need to know about the Electoral Amendment Bill
A proposed bill would make several changes to how elections are run before the 2026 election. Photo: RNZ / File Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week , Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. Special votes on Election Day take longer to process. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes . Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back . "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Attorney-General Judith Collins. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year , the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report , Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 , which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying "frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report . Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed . The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. The bill will now go before Parliament in a first reading. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Better late than never
The government's reasoning for stopping late voter registration, including enrolling and voting on election day, is flimsy. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has put too much strain on the system and it is taking too long to get the final vote count. He says this could worsen in future general elections, conveniently not mentioning the other delay to new government formation — protracted negotiations between political parties. There were multiple issues with the count in 2023, but should the blame for the time taken fall on late enrolled voters or a system which was poorly resourced, staffed and organised? The law was changed for the 2020 election to allow enrolment on voting day after 19,000 people who had turned up at the previous election to enrol and vote were disenfranchised. The Electoral Amendment Bill, introduced to the House last week, will not take the situation back to that which existed for years before 2020. Then, late enrolments could be accepted up until the day before the election. (That is the case for local elections, and officials have pointed out having substantially different deadlines for the two types of elections may confuse voters.) Now, for a vote to be valid in a general election, enrolment would have to be completed 13 days before the election; a day before advance voting starts. In his media release announcing the proposed change, Mr Goldsmith referred to the Australian law setting the enrolment deadline for 26 days before the Federal election. Whether he was trying to provoke an odd Trans-Tasman rivalry — anything the Aussies can do we can do in half the time — is not clear. It was a strange comparison to make because, unlike New Zealand, Australia has compulsory voting. He did not mention almost half of the states in the United States of America allow same day enrolment and voting, as does Canada. In our last election, special votes included more than 97,000 people who enrolled during the voting period and nearly 134,000 people who changed electorates during that time. Officials have suggested this gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected by this policy change, and the earlier the deadline, the more people who are likely to be impacted. Also, Electoral Commission data indicates special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger proportions of Māori, Asian and Pasifika, and younger people. We should be encouraging these voters, not putting obstacles in their way. When, traditionally, special votes have favoured the Left, this move by the current Right-leaning government looks self-serving. The argument that if people were taking their voting responsibilities seriously, they would ensure they were enrolled with up-to-date information well before voting begins, assumes everyone has an orderly and predictable life, and fully understands their obligations. For David Seymour to say he was "a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law" was another illustration of his failure to make the transition from shoot-from-the-lip party leader to the gravitas-requiring role of the deputy prime minister. Call us picky, but the special voters lodging votes on or close to polling day in the last two elections were not outlaws. Mr Goldsmith's description of Mr Seymour's comments as unhelpful was an understatement if ever there was one. Among other things, the Bill also proposes reintroducing a total ban on prisoner voting for those convicted and sentenced, something which is not a surprise from the government. It is more about cynically playing to those still convinced by its tired tough-on-crime mantra than considering its fairness or contravention of the Bill of Rights Act. It also is against the advice of the Ministry of Justice which supported giving all prisoners the right to vote. Whenever changes are proposed to electoral law, major consideration should be given to whether alterations might improve or dissuade participation from all parts of our society. In this instance, it is difficult to see what weight has been given to this for both prisoners and those who, for whatever reason, might not be up to date with their voter registration 13 days before an election.
The Spinoff
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Changes to electoral law will disenfranchise thousands – and may not save any time
The government does not want to spend the time and resources to fully modernise the law and processes surrounding our electoral rolls – so who are the real dropkicks in this story? Justice minister Paul Goldsmith yesterday unveiled the government's proposals to change electoral law in time for the 2026 election through an Electoral Amendment Bill introduced into the House. Some of these changes, such as once again removing the right to vote from all sentenced prisoners while they remain behind bars, had already been announced. I've had my say on this particular issue already and won't bore you with it again. Let's just say I'm not supportive of what the government wants to do here. The big, and quite unexpected, announcement was that anyone not enrolled to vote once advance voting starts (a period that will be set in law as beginning 12 days before polling day) will no longer be able to cast a vote at all. And people who are enrolled, but are enrolled in the wrong electorate, will only be able to cast a party vote. This proposed prohibition on enrolling and voting on the same day is necessary, Goldsmith claimed, to prevent the vote-counting process from blowing out past the current 20-day timeframe and so enable a speedy declaration of final election results. What the problem is, and why this proposed solution is so radical in the New Zealand context, requires a bit of unpacking. So stick with me as we take a quick tour through how voter enrolment and vote processing works in our system. Let's start with if you have correctly enrolled to vote (i.e. at the place where you reside in terms of electoral rules) before the printed electoral rolls are produced for the election. In this case you simply rock up to any polling station in your electorate, have your name physically crossed off the printed electoral roll, and get given an 'ordinary' ballot. You then mark this and put it in the ballot box, before walking away full of self-satisfaction at having completed your civic duty. However, if for some reason your name is not on the printed electoral roll for the electorate you are voting in, then you will have to cast a 'special' vote. This may be for a whole bunch of reasons. Somehow your name may have been left off the printed electoral roll, despite your being correctly enrolled. You may be voting outside the electorate you correctly are enrolled in because you are travelling for business, or are attending university in another city, or similar. Your name may be on the 'unpublished' electoral roll because of personal safety fears. You may have enrolled to vote after the printed roll was produced (but before voting begins). You may be enrolled but have moved residence and forgotten to update your enrolment details. Or, you may not actually be enrolled to vote at all when you turn up at the polling place. In any of these cases, you first have to fill out a 'special vote declaration' before receiving and casting a ballot. These special votes and declarations get set aside and only are counted after the declaration has been processed by electoral officials. If a voter was enrolled but subsequently has changed their residence, then their declaration is used to update their enrolment to their new electorate (thereby allowing their electorate vote to count). And if a voter was not enrolled at all, their declaration is used to enrol them (thereby allowing both their electorate and party votes to count). Processing special votes is much more time-consuming than is the case for counting and checking ordinary votes – it takes something like 10 times longer, according to the Electoral Commission. And the number of special votes has increased a lot; in 2023, some 602,000 votes cast were special votes, or about 20.9% of all votes. The increase means that more time is required post-election before a final election result (which includes special vote totals) can be announced. It is this pushing out of the final result that has Goldsmith so upset. And, to be fair, it is a real potential problem (one that can be expected to get worse over time if nothing is done). Which is why the Electoral Commission and Ministry of Justice officials suggested a range of changes to law and practice in response. Some of these suggestions – allowing for automatic updating of a voter's enrolment details using government data, etc – have been included in the bill. That's a good thing, which can in itself be expected to ease the numbers of people having to cast special votes in the future. However, the government also has chosen to do something that no one involved in electoral law policy advised – removed the ability for 'same day' enrolment and voting. I'll explain why this is just a bad thing to do in itself, before moving on to speculate on why it might not even be that effective at achieving what the government says it wants. In terms of why this is bad policy, we need to understand the general principle on which New Zealand elections operate. Voting generally is considered to be 'A Good Thing' which ought to be made as easy and accessible as possible. So, we continue to provide a huge number of polling places across the country (including in rural areas where only a handful of votes result). We allow people to cast their votes at any polling place anywhere in the country for pretty much any reason (even if this results in their casting a special vote). We do not have any voter ID rules in place, relying instead on after-the-fact roll checks to pick up any double-voting issues. And we always have allowed people to enrol and vote on the same day right up to the day before election day itself (with this approach then extended to election day itself in 2020). Therefore, on its face an approach that says 'unless your enrolment details are correct some 13 days before election day, you won't get to vote' flies in the face of our electoral traditions. And the consequences of the change are all too predictable. As noted by officials during the bill's development, some 300,000 to 350,000 special votes in 2023 were cast because the voter had either failed to update their enrolment details or were not enrolled at all. Those voters are most likely to be younger, and come from areas with high Māori, Asian and Pacific communities. In other words, they are what David Seymour thinks of as ' dropkicks ' – people apparently so unworthy of our respect that we should have no qualms about locking them out of the democratic process. The fact that this cohort is more likely to vote for left-of-centre parties (which invariably increase their share of the vote after special votes are counted) no doubt colours this assessment. Meaning that we have a right-of-centre coalition government championing a law change that was not recommended to them as a solution, which goes against the traditional grain of our electoral laws, and which will predominantly disenfranchise individuals prone to supporting their political opponents. It is a good thing I am not conspiratorially minded otherwise some grim conclusions might be drawn. Furthermore, it is not entirely obvious that Goldsmith's proposed changes will be effective in solving the underlying problem of delayed election results. We might start by noting that while his announcement of the changes complained that '[t]he final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three', the accompanying bill will not change this timetable. So, apparently the government is at least resignedly accepting of a 20-day wait for final election results. Whether that 20-day timeframe can accommodate the necessary vote processing and counting, even with the government's proposed changes, is still questionable. Because the government is not removing the general availability of special votes. Voters can still cast these if they are outside their electorate, or enrol after the printed roll is produced (but before voting begins), or are on the unpublished roll, and so on. The government instead is removing the right to enrol, or change enrolment details, after voting begins. And because being correctly enrolled is a precondition to casting a valid vote, this therefore will work to invalidate the special vote of someone who is not enrolled after it has been cast. What this means in practice is that anyone not enrolled when voting begins can still wander into a polling place, fill out a special vote declaration, receive a ballot paper and cast what they think is a vote. Electoral officials will then still need to process the declaration in order to work out that the individual isn't actually enrolled to vote anywhere. Only then will the vote be discarded from the vote count – all that changes is that the electoral roll is not updated to include their details (so their vote remains in the count). Equally, if you are enrolled but have changed residence without updating your details you can fill out a special vote declaration and cast a vote. The electoral officials will then process your declaration in order to work out that although you have enrolled to vote (and so can cast a party vote), you did so in the wrong electorate (so they cannot count your electorate vote). Again, this may save some time, or it may just create more complexity. Of course, what the government says it wants is for people to correctly enrol in their proper electorate before voting starts so that they can cast an ordinary vote. And I have no doubt that there will be a huge push by both the Electoral Commission and political parties of the left (plus affiliated civil-society groups) to get this message out. Which may in and of itself ameliorate the worst possible impacts of this proposed law change. But people are, by-and-large, not reliably rational actors. The intricacies of electoral law and the technical requirements to participate are not something that sit at the minds of many (probably most) individuals. In fact, the only time many (probably most) concern themselves with elections is when they really need to – at the point they make their way to the polling place to take part in choosing who will govern the country for the next three years. The government's proposed law change risks cancelling the efforts of some thousands, or even tens-of-thousands, of people who have shown a willingness to engage in that practice. It does so because the government does not want to spend the time and resources to fully modernise the law and processes surrounding our electoral rolls. And it reverses a long-standing approach to how our electoral system should operate. It really makes you wonder who are the real dropkicks in this story?
