UK: Electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic - will the new Electoral Administration Bill help?

The Electoral Administration Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 11 October 2005. The Bill is the Government’s response to the findings of the Electoral Commissioner who heard the Aston and Bordesley Green Election Petitions earlier this year, arising from the local elections on 10 June 2004. In a much-quoted observation in his judgment, the Commissioner referred to "…evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic…"

Allegations were not only made against the three successful Labour Party candidates in each ward, but also against the Returning Officer of Birmingham City Council. These allegations focussed on her organisation of the local elections, particularly in relation to postal votes.

Cover for a Returning Officer is likely to be provided by way of endorsement or extension to a public authority policy. It is likely to cover defence costs and also the costs of re-running an election. What the policy may not cover are the costs incurred by the local authority in providing a suitable venue for the trial of a petition, the costs and expenses of a commissioner to hear the trial, his court clerks and shorthand writers. These costs can be significant and it is provided in statute that they must be paid by the local authority.

In the Birmingham cases the allegations against the Returning Officer were dismissed, but there was no costs recovery from either the Petitioners (some of whom had public funding) or from the Labour Party Respondents against whom the fraud allegations were made out.

There are local elections due to be held next year and it remains to be seen whether the two new offences in the Electoral Administration Bill provide a sufficiently strong deterrent against electoral fraud. According to the Department of Constitutional Affairs the earliest that the Bill will be passed is 16 June 2006. It is not clear whether it will be in force before the local elections next year.

The General Election did not produce the flurry of election petitions we might have expected following the decision of the Electoral Commissioner a month earlier. But as we saw during the trials in Birmingham, tensions can run very high at local elections and the results can be vitally important in a particular ward. Winning margins may be small and therefore more readily open to challenge than the results of Parliamentary elections. It follows that there may be a greater likelihood of claims under public authority covers following local elections if returning officers or their staff are also in the frame.

In light of the local elections next year, Insurers involved with public authority cover should watch the passage of the Bill with interest.

Full Article

The Electoral Administration Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 11 October 2005. The Bill is the Government's response to the findings of the Electoral Commissioner who heard the Aston and Bordesley Green Election Petitions earlier this year, arising from the local elections on 10 June 2004. In a much-quoted observation in his judgment, the Commissioner referred to "…evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic…"

Allegations were not only made against the three successful Labour Party candidates in each ward, but also against the Returning Officer of Birmingham City Council. These allegations focussed on her organisation of the local elections, particularly in relation to postal votes.

Cover for a Returning Officer is likely to be provided by way of endorsement or extension to a public authority policy. It is likely to cover defence costs and also the costs of re-running an election. What the policy may not cover are the costs incurred by the local authority in providing a suitable venue for the trial of a petition, the costs and expenses of a commissioner to hear the trial, his court clerks and shorthand writers. These costs can be significant and it is provided in statute that they must be paid by the local authority.

In the Birmingham cases the allegations against the Returning Officer were dismissed, but there was no costs recovery from either the Petitioners (some of whom had public funding) or from the Labour Party Respondents against whom the fraud allegations were made out.

There are local elections due to be held next year and it remains to be seen whether the two new offences in the Electoral Administration Bill provide a sufficiently strong deterrent against electoral fraud. According to the Department of Constitutional Affairs the earliest that the Bill will be passed is 16 June 2006. It is not clear whether it will be in force before the local elections next year.

The General Election did not produce the flurry of election petitions we might have expected following the decision of the Electoral Commissioner a month earlier. But as we saw during the trials in Birmingham, tensions can run very high at local elections and the results can be vitally important in a particular ward. Winning margins may be small and therefore more readily open to challenge than the results of Parliamentary elections. It follows that there may be a greater likelihood of claims under public authority covers following local elections if returning officers or their staff are also in the frame.

In light of the local elections next year, Insurers involved with public authority cover should watch the passage of the Bill with interest.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

The original publication date for this article was 15/12/2005.