Electoral Amendment Act: proposed amendments

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson invited the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) to address matters arising from the previous day’s meeting when the IEC responded to the public submissions on the Electoral Amendment Bill.

Portfolio Committee Amendments to Electoral Amendment Act: briefing by Electoral Commission
Mr Mosotho Moepya, IEC Chief Executive Officer (CEO), accompanied by Adv Pansy Tlakula, IEC Chairperson, said he would take the Committee through the drafting of amendments proposed by the public and the Committee as approved by the Committee the previous day. He read through all the proposed amendments (see document). Comments arising from this included:

Clause 4 amending Section 8
The Commission had now substituted the reference to the old Mental Health Act of 1973 to the new Mental Health Care Act of 2002.

Clause 6 substituting Section 33
Section 33(3) and (4)
Mr Moepya said the Commission proposed to omit section 33(3) and (4) and replace it with a new 33(3). The section essentially captured the proviso that the Commission could make an arrangement for military personnel serving outside the Republic.

Mr G McIntosh (Cope) sought clarity on the use of the phrase “segment of the voter’s roll” in the Bill which appeared in Clauses 2 and 6.

Mr Moepya said "segment" related to that part of the voters’ roll that captured a ward, district or municipalities.

Mr McIntosh asked if there was a another segment for those people living outside the Republic.

Mr Moepya replied there was an international segment of the roll.

Adv Pansy Tlakula, IEC Chairperson, clarified that the segment did not exist, but would be created. Once people had been registered outside the country, the segment would be created.

Section 33(5)
Mr Moepya said the Commission proposed to omit section 33(5) and substitute it with a new 33(4). The section essentially captured the SA mission location where persons were intending to vote outside of the Republic. The “location” was not indicated previously.

Mr McIntosh sought clarity on how the international segment would work in reality. He cited an example of someone temporarily working outside the Republic. Would the person belong to the international segment even if he had returned?

Mr Moepya replied that only those who had never registered would be allocated to the international segment. The person outside of the Republic could go to an SA mission with an ID and passport and register there.

Mr McIntosh sought clarity on whether registered people who were outside the country would be able to move their voting registration to the international segment.

Mr Moepya replied such persons do not need to register, but only notify the chief electoral officer (CE Officer) that they would be voting. The CE Officer would make the necessary arrangements for their ballot to be moved to the country they were in. The persons who had never register and were outside the country could apply for registration. Only first time voters would be able to take advantage of the situation before the Committee.

Adv Tlakula clarified that registered persons did not need to re-register if they were to be out of the country during the elections.

Section 33(6)
Mr Moepya said the Commission proposed to omit section 33(6) and substitute a new 33(5), where the words “for the purposes of schedule 1A”, before “vote cast in accordance” would be inserted.

The Chairperson sought clarity if all Members were satisfied with these proposed amendments.

Mr M Mnqasela (DA) indicated he was not happy especially based on the discussions the previous day. He requested if he could present some proposed amendments for consideration by the Committee. The Democratic Alliance had taken sections of the Amendment Bill to court as they seemed unconstitutional. If those sections were not dealt with, that would create an untenable situation for the Commission that would result in unnecessary litigation and a cost burden. Otherwise the Bill looked good, except for those few issues that had been underscored and highlighted in the DA's document.

Mr McIntosh rejected the idea and said the challenge was that the DA was not dealing with the matter through the parliamentary procedure. It had opted to run to the courts. There was nothing wrong with that. But when dealing with an amendment bill, one had to exhaust parliamentary processes and then if that failed, then one could go to the court. The worrying thing was the fact that people, not only the DA but everyone, believed they could govern the country through the courts. This was not good and a burden to the court system.

He did not want to get to the merits of the DA’s arguments in seeking the provincial ballot for everybody. However, when a political party ran a parallel system to the parliamentary process, this was a difficult situation. The DA should give an undertaking that it would not go to court until the parliamentary process had been finalised, and that the Bill had been thoroughly debated.

Adv A Gaum (ANC) said the Committee was dealing with the inputs from the IEC on technical glitches. This was not the point to move amendments; if the DA wanted to do that it should be done separately from the session with the IEC. The matter was dealt with the day before, and it was indicated that the DA’s actions were premature as the parliamentary process was not complete. It would seem that the DA was not sure which avenue to utilise, and the sooner the organisation made up its mind the better.

Running to court while the parliamentary process was unfolding was like asking the courts to legislate on Parliament’s behalf. This was so untenable, and no parliament and no court would allow that. It would bring the whole notion of separation of powers into crisis. The DA had a right to move amendments in terms of the process, but not now. The Committee was dealing with technical inputs from the IEC. He said it would be interesting to have the DA explain how it would be possible in practice to allow people to cast the provincial vote if they did not live in the country. Quite a lot of issues needed to be considered on the matter and the implications were massive.

The Chairperson said the Committee was still busy with issues raised the previous day. She asked if Members were in agreement with the drafting work done overnight on the matters that had been raised the day before.

Mr Mnqasela replied he was not in agreement. He had the DA’s proposed amendments ready and, by tabling them, he would like to exploit the presence of the IEC so as to solicit their comment on the implications. The DA was happy with most of what had been proposed. But there were areas that made it impossible for the DA to admit the amendments were all good. If the party was allowed to share what it had in mind, then the court case might be withdrawn.

Mr McIntosh said it was intolerable that the DA Member could say that if the amendment was accepted then the DA would withdraw the court case. This was like holding a pistol to the head of the Committee and such a situation should not be allowed. This was a threat; and the Member should withdraw that threat. The Member should go back to his caucus and have the debate there, this was outrageous.

Adv Gaum commented that the IEC was once asked to brief the Committee in detail on reasons why allowing provincial vote at SA missions would be a challenge. A number of good points were raised by the IEC; now the DA was not coming to dispute those arguments put forward by the IEC. It was not proper to ask the IEC to comment on the amendment. Rather, the DA should convince the Committee that this was possible to do in practice.

Mr M De Freitas (DA) said it was true the IEC had given the presentation but the party had not had time to respond and suggest alternatives. The reason the DA used the legal process was because Parliament was running out of time. The Amendment Bill had to be passed soon. The issue presented about voting for provinces was something new, and no country had ever found a solution. Allowing a provincial vote by travelling citizens would not result in any additional administration costs, and no additional ballot would need to be printed. There were solutions that could be found. Most democratic countries allowed their citizens to vote abroad. South Africans abroad viewed their stay as temporary and wanted to be part of the country. There were solutions to the problem. The IEC in its presentation had made it melodramatic, as if the whole election would be in question.

Adv Gaum asked how would it be possible to know the number of provincial ballots to print. What were the implications if a person visited a voting station and there was no provincial ballot paper available? Another challenge was transporting the ballot papers to where they would be counted. He failed to understand how South Africans abroad would be given the provincial ballot, while citizens travelling internally would not. What province would such citizens vote for, especially if they had never resided in the country? The voting district determined the province one could vote for. How would first-time voters, who register abroad, decide on which province to vote for?

Mr De Freitas replied people could vote in any voting station in the country as long as they were in their provinces. People were not restricted to their voting district as was the case with the municipal elections. One did not need to print extra ballots; there had to be a system where one indicated they would be voting outside their province. There was no need to transport the votes to home provinces; the IEC could count those votes and advise the home province of those results and then deal with administration afterwards. The DA was not saying citizens abroad should have more rights than locals. He suggested that when it came to additional international voting stations there had to be a criterion that took into consideration the concentration of South Africans in that particular region. It would be silly to open voting stations without assessing the concentration of South Africans there.

Mr Mnqasela commented that no one would get an extra ballot, and if a person did not indicate the intention to vote within 15 days after the election date had been proclaimed, such a person would forfeit the right to vote. Provincial votes had already been recognised in the Principal Act, but the country had ignored the provision. He cited the section from the Electoral Act which clearly stated that in an election for the provincial legislatures, the Commission must allow a person to apply for a special vote prior to election day in a voting station at which that person was registered, if the person could not vote in the voting district due to his or her absence on election day. The matter was already in the Act; ignoring this was more like opening the Commission to court challenges. Anyone could take the IEC to court for being denied the right to vote. People in the country outside their voting districts were allowed the provincial vote, as long as they applied in the 15 days after the proclamation.

Mr Mnqasela said those outside the country should also enjoy the right already enjoyed by citizens within the country. People outside got the right to be citizens by being a descendant. He cited a story of his long lost granny, who went to live in London, whose children – according to him – still belonged to the Gungululu district in Mthatha; this was where their provincial vote could be captured. This was not difficult. These people were not forced to vote, but their right ought not to be curtailed.

The Chairperson sought clarity on the example used, and asked if the grandchildren were ever in SA, and whether they ever registered. How citizenship could be bestowed on such people.

Mr Mnqasela said Britain allowed dual citizenship. In such countries where dual citizenship was allowed, South Africans should be allowed citizenship, but the IEC was better placed to comment on why it would be difficult for them to exercise that right.

Adv Gaum asked which province would SA citizens abroad vote for. Would they decide on this themselves? The basis of the whole system was that a person ought to register at a certain voting district that would be where that person voted.

Adv Gaum asked if the DA disputed the fact that the rights of citizens, within the country but not at home during elections, were protected as they could exercise a special vote. The citizens could simply give notice, and be allowed to vote both nationally and provincially. Was this provision not enough to guarantee their rights? Why should Parliament introduce this new and complex thing?

Mr Mnqasela commented that citizens enjoyed the right, but asked why the provincial vote was not allowed on Election Day to those outside home provinces. The DA wanted to ensure citizens could enjoy the right of the provincial vote even if outside their home province. This right was already recognised in law and just needed to be extended. Movement patterns in the country were influenced by economic opportunities. The people working in relatively richer provinces should not be denied their right to cast their provincial vote. Right now the special vote allowed them to vote within the province before they leave. What if the people had already left the province when the proclamation was made? Travelling was costly, and people could not be moving back and forth only to register. Members ought to be realistic and practical about these things. He pleaded that Members leave their stereotypical views on the matter.

The Chairperson said the challenge with the DA was, once granted kindness, it tended to stretch its demands; and often the party was not flexible. It was important that parties forget their positions and worry about the security of the country. The challenge would be that someone who claimed citizenship by being a descendant, but that person did not know where the original location of his parents was.

Adv Gaum insisted on his question being answered about who would decide which province those outside the country voted for, both those who had never registered and those who had long departed. Why should these citizens be accorded a vote for a particular province?

Mr Mnqasela replied by virtue of inheritance, these persons were indebted to the province from where their parents came.

The Chairperson threw a spanner into the works and asked what happened if the children had parents from different provinces.

Mr Mnqasela replied in the African culture, the tendency was to lean towards the father’s side.

The Chairperson replied she was not satisfied with the response.

Adv Gaum commented this was a brave effort by the Member, but the point proved the weakness of the argument. This would not stand up in a court of law. Allowing a provincial vote to people outside the country was simply problematic.

The Chairperson requested that the IEC be allowed to finish its briefing, so that the Committee could formally receive the DA’s proposed amendments. She reminded Members that yesterday it was agreed that Members would be bringing party positions. The decision to accept the proposed amendments by the DA would be put beofre the Committee.

Adv Gaum sought clarity on whether the IEC had indicated the necessity of including in the Bill something about citizens abroad having to produce both passport and the identity document (ID) on registration.

Clause 7 inserting Section 33A
Mr Moepya said the word “the provincial legislatures” would be substituted by “a provincial legislature” throughout this section. The word “intended” would be inserted before "absence". If there were no questions these were largely the changes that the Commission had proposed.

Adv Gaum requested that the IEC react in detail to the issues that had been raised by the DA on the provincial vote. This would give Members a clear explanation as to what the issues were.

The Chairperson said the Commission would comment after the presentation by the DA. She urged the Commission to clarify whatever outstanding issues there were.

Mr Moepya replied that everything raised the previous day had been dealt with. It had been indicated that the Department of Home Affairs had given an undertaking that it would issue temporary identification certificates. Persons would submit their fingerprints and would be verified in the country, and soon after a temporary ID would be issued. There were challenges about time lags, but that was being taken care of.

The Chairperson said it was important to establish whether the Department had made proper arrangements. The Committee should raise preparations for the elections and whether the infrastructure was ready in its next meeting with the Department.

Mr Mnqasela asked how would those abroad register; would they have to physically go to the missions? There had not been a definite answer about whether the ID document would be strictly required.

Adv Tlakula replied that the Bill indicated that a person should apply for registration in person. There had been no regulations on the modalities for those overseas yet. The Commission would waited for the Bill to be passed, before it came up with the regulations. Regarding the documents, a green bar-coded ID or a temporary certificate (issued on the basis of one's ID number) would be required for registration. But over and above these documents, a valid passport would be required for those living overseas. The intention was to ensure that the people who vote were South African citizens.

Party positions on the Electoral Amendment Bill
The Chairperson requested the DA deliver its proposed amendments.

DA’s input on Democratic Alliance proposed amendments
Mr Mnqasela introduced the Democratic Alliance proposed amendments:

Clause 4(b)(3)
“A person’s name must be entered in the voters’ roll only for the voting district in which that person is ordinarily resident and for no other voting district: Provided that where that person is ordinarily resident outside the Republic, that person must provide the address at which they last resided in the Republic and that address is regarde3d as their ordinary place of residence in Republic.”

Mr Mnqasela said the issue of people who had obtained citizenship by being a descendant could be added here. The residential addresses of those persons would be the place where their parents resided while in the country. This only applied to individuals who had never visited the country at all. He would put this in writing.

Clause 6 - section 33(4)
“In an election for the National Assembly, the Commission must allow a person, who is outside the Republic, to apply for and cast a special vote if that person’s name appears on the relevant segment of the voters’ roll for persons who are in the Republic, if that person notifies the Commission within 15 days after the proclamation of the date of the election of his or her intention to vote outside the Republic.”

Mr Mnqasela said an insertion of the word “relevant” before “segment of the voters’ roll” was the only change recommended, so as not to create a segment for this category.

Clause 7 - section 33A(4)
“In an election for the provincial legislatures, the Commission must allow a person, who is outside the Republic, to apply for and cast a special vote if that person’s name appears on the relevant segments of the voters’ roll for persons who are in the Republic, if that person notifies the Commission within 15 days after the proclamation of the date of the elections of his or her intention to vote outside the Republic”.

Clause 7 - section 33A(5)
“In an election for the provincial legislatures, the Commission must allow a person to apply for and cast a special vote if that person’s name appears on the relevant segment of the voters’ roll for persons ordinarily resident at a place outside the Republic, if that person notifies the Commission within 15 days after the proclamation of the date of the election of his or her intention to vote”.

Clause 7 - section 33A(6)
“Votes cast in accordance with subsections (4) and (5) shall be counted as votes cast provincially”.

Mr Mnqasela said this clause contained many insertions. The Commission should prescribe a procedure to allow for a special vote for the provincial legislature and that ought to be consistent with Chapter 4 on casting and counting of special votes. As the meeting continued, the DA was willing to consider any other issues that might require attention.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked if this was a party position.

Mr Mnqasela replied yes.

Adv Gaum said the document did not make provision for the provincial vote for persons outside the province on the election day although an intention to insert the matter was alluded to. The document also did not refer to allowing voting and registration beyond SA missions abroad. He asked if the DA was dropping that point.

Mr Mnqasela replied the DA was clear and open minded to discussions around issues. One did not get married to a particular position just because one raised it. The DA was not reneging, but simply changing the original position. The party was prepared to reach a compromise position. The DA understood the implications, and the fact that 'SA land' abroad was restricted only to a mission. And that could result in cumbersomeness. The DA believed that, at this stage the only thing possible was that people within the borders could be allowed both ballots. The other feasible scenario was those persons travelling within the country. They simply had to indicate what province they would be voting in. This would be put in writing, as well as a new subsection that would be inserted to indicate that in an election of a provincial legislature, the Commission should allow a person to apply for a special vote prior to Election Day, in a voting district that was outside of the province the person came from.

The Chairperson interjected and said this was the current practice.

Mr Mnqasela replied no. The current provision was one could do a special vote only in a province that the person came from. The DA was proposing that citizens should be able to vote for their province wherever they were in the country, without having to travel to home province.

Adv Gaum sought clarity on whether this would be done on the Election Day.

Mr Mnqasela replied no, this would be on the special voting day. Perhaps the IEC could respond.

Adv Gaum said he would appreciate the IEC response on the issues on the table especially voter registration outside the missions. What challenges were there on this aspect? He requested that the IEC give a detailed comment on the issues.

Adv Tlakula replied the issue of establishing stations outside missions abroad was a challenge. The suggestion to look at concentration of SA citizens, in order to establish voting stations, was flawed. This appeared to be another form of discrimination because the question would be asked as to why not establish everywhere to give South Africans an equal opportunity. The main challenge was that the Commission could only operate in SA territories abroad which were only at the SA mission. It would be very difficult to hire churches and schools as voting stations abroad. Practically this would not work.

Mr Moepya replied the basic principle in SA’s electoral scheme was that voters in a province should elect their regional representatives. This was intended to ensure that the issues that pertained to provinces were represented. Effects of a vote cast in terms of section 24A (this was a section used when outside of the province) affected the overall distribution of the 200 regional seats. These were insignificant; the overall intention of the section was to be more inclusive.

Mr Moepya said votes cast in the regions were not returned in the province of origin. This was the reason the Commission spoke of distortion, but the compensatory factor was that a large number of people turned out to vote. Despite the small distortion, a party that obtained 10% of the vote would get 10% of the seats in the NA. The overall proportionality in that instance would be attained.

Mr Moepya said a special vote was applied for at the office of the presiding officer where one was registered. The presiding officer would make arrangement for the ballot to be sent to where the person was going. When that application was made, the name of a person was not crossed from the voters roll. Sometimes persons apply for special votes and do not use them. Members were correct that when one changed provinces, it did not result in an extra ballot being printed.

He explained the process of special voting, and counting of such votes.

Mr Moepya said if the provincial vote were to be generally applied, such a situation would lead to the Commission losing control of the elections process. Ballots were not printed and packaged individually, and secondly would have to be moved around the 22 000 voting stations in the country. To a large extent such a situation would be reliant on a functioning and effective postal system. In the event one of the ballots was not there on Election Day, a decision on whether the Commission waited for the ballot or not, would have to be made. Then the declaration of results could not happen within seven days; the Commission would require two to three weeks after elections. This was a very difficult situation and the country would be waiting and there would be anxiety. The provincial vote was doable but would create a situation that could endanger an election process.

Adv Tlakula commented on the difficulty of special votes cast outside the province. Special voting was simply advanced voting and was way too cumbersome a process. Going ahead with the proposal would mean having to send the national and the provincial ballots (for 9 provinces) to each of the 22 000 voting stations. This was a challenge especially with regards to credibility of the elections.

Mr Mnqasela dismissed the explanation and said costing was done on any Bill, but of course depending on the amount of work to be done. This could be dealt with in the regulations as to how the ballots could be printed. This was the challenge with the ballot because they were not numbered. That special votes happened two days before elections was the dilemma the Commission was faced with. This was a logistical issue that could be addressed. The country could not replace rights with logistical challenges. This could still be done, just that the IEC should look into the modalities. The integrity of the elections would still be maintained.

Adv Gaum said jurisdiction was the main challenge about foreign missions and establishment of voting stations outside of the country. It would appear that the reason SA citizens living abroad could not cast their provincial vote was nexus (physical address). Another pertained to the special vote being cast and counted at the district where one had registered. The problem would be that the votes cast would have to be transported back to the province of origin and that would place the matter outside the control of the Commission. He asked if electronic voting would be possible in this situation.

Mr Moepya replied although the Constitution conferred the right to vote on all citizens, it did not prescribe that every citizen should be pursued wherever they were. There were limitations; South Africans might be in more countries than there were missions. Special votes were not a constitutional imperative; Parliament should look at how those rights were provided for. The purpose of a voters’ roll in elections was to determine in which provincial legislature a voter might vote for. A voting district in this instance connected a voter to a ward, municipality, province and to the country. All of these connections were by virtue of ordinary residence. For citizens outside the Republic, the connection was not by ordinary residence, but that of being a South African citizen. The National Assembly was the logical institution to connect with in that situation. The issue would be how the citizens abroad were connected to the provincial vote at this stage.

Mr Sy Mamabolo, IEC Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, said the reason the Commission could not count a special vote cast in another province was because the use of the voters’ roll could not be verified. But also party agents had to verify what each party got in terms of the votes counted. Voter confidence would be removed from the process, and transparency would be compromised.

Mr Norman Du Plessis, IEC Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, said there was no electronic communication between voting stations. There was electronic communications between municipal electoral offices but not the 22 000 voting stations. This meant the Commission would first have to roll out to all the municipal offices. Electronic voting was not possible.

Adv Tlakula pointed out that the physical address was addressed in Section 7(3) of the Act. The Act specified that a person was regarded to be ordinarily resident at the home where the person normally lived, and to which the person regularly returned after temporary absence. This clearly defined who qualified to register as a voter.

Mr Mnqasela commented it was clear that there could never be a common ground on the matter. The challenge was that the IEC did not want to do this. The DA was committed in ensuring that as many people as possible participate in the elections. The Committee had seriously engaged on the matter. He submitted that the only challenge was the fact that the ballot paper came in batches without being numbered. It would seem now that the main concern was cost. That could be prevented through the use of Government Printing Works. He said he was not convinced by the arguments.

Adv Gaum commented that the verification against the voter’s roll was crucial. If one could not take the voters’ roll to all the different provinces, how would double voting be prevented?

Mr Mnqasela replied an indication had been given that the details about a voter were transported to wherever the person moved to. The delegation was not indicating that this could not be done, but just that there was a challenge with logistics. He said the matter of the day of the special vote before the elections needed to be addressed in the regulations.

Adv Tlakula replied the Commission was not defending anything but simply underscoring the challenges of allowing the provincial vote to people who were not in their provinces. The storage of ballot papers was already a challenge between special voting and Election Day. This was where suspicion arose, and that could compromise the result of an election. Mostly, presiding officers did not have a place to store the ballots and have had to take them home.

Mr Mnqasela pleaded that the IEC look into what could be done. He asked if there was reason not to include a barcode on the ballots. To guarantee security and secrecy this was an option that could be exploited. He said the challenge about storage was only after the Election Day, but before that should not be a challenge at all. This was only a challenge in rural provinces like the Eastern Cape. Other countries had collation centres that were guarded by armed police officers, perhaps the country could look into that.

Mr Moepya replied the reason barcodes and numbering were not done on the ballot was precisely due to confidentiality.

Adv Gaum said the DA was now introducing a third form of special votes and that was something new to the amendment the party proposed. Currently there were two kinds of special votes: the international vote, and the one done at one’s voting district prior the Election Day. The DA was now proposing that the provincial vote given to those absent from home provinces on Election Day be a special vote. These votes would have to be transported to the province of origin for purposes of verification against the voters’ roll. While national vote could be counted anywhere, the provincial vote could not. Could the Commission comment on the matter?

Mr Du Plessis said the reason the Commission appeared reluctant to support the DA’s proposal was not cost. It was rather the logistics, fluidity, and not having control of the process; all these would call into question the integrity of an election. There would be all kinds of rumours of tampering. Once one had had an election, it was desirable that the elections were announced timeously.

The Chairperson requested parties to indicate their position on the matter as the DA had already been afforded that opportunity.

Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) position on the Bill
Ms H Makhuba (IFP) said her party welcomed the Bill, and agreed that SA citizens living outside should only vote nationally and not on the provincial ballot, given challenges the associated with such a situation. There were challenges of voter fraud and lack of monitoring that would be associated with such a step. The security of documents was not guaranteed. The IFP understood that voting was every South African’s right, but people needed to understand that when outside the country they could vote only nationally and not provincially.

African National Congress (ANC) position on the Bill
Adv Gaum said the ANC supported the Bill as it stood. It would be problematic to establish extra voting stations outside the country. The provincial vote should not be allowed to citizens living abroad mainly for the challenge of the nexus, and the interest such persons might have in provincial elections. The ANC believed that such action would compromise the integrity and legitimacy of the elections process. No right in the Bill of Rights was absolute and could not be limited. If being denied the provincial vote was seen as a limitation, then that was a justifiable limitation. Indeed, it would be reasonable for those within the country to vote both nationally and provincially.

Members went through the Bill and approved each clause. A final vote on the Bill in its entirety would happen on the 17 September. The Bill would be voted on in the National Assembly on Thursday 19 September.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix

SABC article: DA seeks SA voting rights abroad Wednesday 4 September 2013 15:31

The Democratic Alliance (DA) has approached the Western Cape High Court to allow South Africans living overseas to register for both national and provincial elections, the party said on Wednesday. The party and nine other applicants filed papers in the high court on Tuesday, said DA federal executive chairperson, James Selfe.

The Constitutional Court found in 2009 that the Electoral Act and its regulations were unconstitutional and invalid as it prevented citizens living overseas from voting in national elections. The Home Affairs Department had since tabled the Electoral Amendment Bill as a remedy and it was currently before the home affairs portfolio committee.
 
The DA believed the Bill might still be unconstitutional because it excluded the right to a provincial vote. "As it stands, the Independent Electoral Commission's Bill will only allow for overseas voters to vote for the national list and not the regional list," Selfe said.
 
"By doing this, the Bill would also effectively rule out having a constituency-based system. It will also not provide for overseas voters to vote for the provincial legislature."
 
The party wanted citizens to be able to register abroad and have voting stations made available in locations where a substantial number of South Africans lived, but where there were no embassies or consulates. Selfe said he had already sought these rights through a Private Member's Bill submitted earlier this year but it was rejected by Parliament.
 
The Electoral Act already allowed public servants living abroad or outside their province to register as voters and to vote in provincial elections. "This right should be extended to all South Africans otherwise it effectively creates a situation of some being more equal than others," Selfe said.
 
The additional vote option would not create logistical or administrative problems. "All that will be required is for the IEC to provide overseas voters with two ballot papers instead of one. In terms of counting those votes towards the provincial list, they can follow the exact same procedure as is already done for government officials abroad."