Suchergebnisse

In Make It 16 Incorporated vs. the Attorney-General, 21 November 2022, the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled that existing legislation that does not allow people to vote in elections before the age of 18 is discriminatory because it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which guarantees citizens freedom from age discrimination after the age of 16. The New Zealand Supreme Court has issued a declaration of incompatibility in this regard. However, this does not oblige either the government or parliament to lower the voting age.

The case concerned the election of the President of the United States of America who is elected by the Electoral College. In the 2016 election, Washington's three electors voted inconsistent with the results of the general election in the state from which they were delegated. As a result, these electors were fined $ 1,000. The Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of this type of solution, because there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States of America that would explicitly prohibit states from depriving presidential electors of their freedom to vote.

The parliamentary elections in Croatia were ordered for 5 July 2020. However, as the election date approached, the number of coronavirus infections increased, prompting the authority responsible for overseeing the conduct of the elections, i.e., the State Election Commission of the Republic of Croatia, to issue appropriate voting guidelines. People in self-isolation had the opportunity to vote only if the registration activities were completed by 2 July 2020, as this guaranteed a visit from a member of the election commission to whom they could pass the vote, but completely excluded infected persons from the vote. On 1 July 2020, one of the Croatian non-governmental organizations, the GONG, submitted a request to the Constitutional Court (supported by the signatures of several dozen citizens) to examine the legality of the elections, arguing that the state authorities are obliged to give each voter the possibility to vote in the elections. The Constitutional Court stated that the state authorities are obliged to create the legal possibility of exercising the right to vote guaranteed by the constitution for all citizens who express such wish, including those who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID 19) or any other infectious disease, and who, for this reason, remain in isolation.

The Parliament of Singapore of the 13th parliamentary term was dissolved on 23 June 2020. Despite the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic, this meant, in accordance with Article 66 of the 1965 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, that the parliamentary elections had to be held. However, the legislator has established special rules for the election procedure in connection with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. A special statutory regulation was adopted on 4 May 2020. Among other things, solutions have been introduced to give people isolated due to the coronavirus the opportunity to vote by organizing elections in places of mass isolation, such as hotels or student dormitories. The solutions provided for in this regulation have been the subject of a court complaint filed by Daniel De Costa Augustin, a Singapore citizen. In the complaint it was argued that the precautionary measures needed to protect public health at the present time have the effect of depriving voters of the right to free and fair elections. In the judgement, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant had failed to show that the adopted solutions violated the right to vote. In particular, it pointed out that health issues are not related to the right to vote and should be dealt with separately as a public health issue, which was not the subject of any action brought before the Court of Appeal.

The low and constantly decreasing voter turnout in the European Parliamentary elections has recently become a significant concern for both the EU and national authorities. The reasons for this state of affairs, however, to a large extent should be sought in the 'statistical' effect of the EU enlargement by the new member states, where the turnout tends to be low in all types of elections. It should be observed that after the third elections, the turnout in the 'old' EU has stabilized at the level of 52–53%, and the claims that it has decreased dramatically are erroneous. The situation is quite different in the new member states, where the turnout has actually decreased by several percent since the 2004 elections. It can be claimed then that the low turnout is not a result of the member states' citizens' decreasing interest in EU matters, but rather of a general aversion towards politics and politicians. Comparing the turnout in the elections to the European Parliament, and national parliaments, one can observe that the difference is similar in all the countries, and amounts to approx. 30%. This difference follows from the fact that EU citizens treat the European Parliamentary elections as 'second-division elections' (of secondary significance) that in their opinion do not have a significant influence. Therefore, it appears that one should look for the reasons why general turnover has fallen, rather than exclusively at that in EP elections. What will be the remedy for this low turnout? Firstly, the voters need to be informed about the significance of the decisions taken by the EP to their everyday life. Advantageous outcomes could also be provided by the reforms of election law, such as the changed time of the polls or the introduction of preferential voting in all the states. It is also important to continue and develop the campaign which promotes voting, conducted by NGOs, as well as by the EU institutions.