Electoral Laws Amendment Bill: briefing

Home Affairs

02 September 2003
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

HOME AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
2 September 2003
ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL: BRIEFING

Chairperson:
Mr H Chauke (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Electoral Laws Amendment Bill [B54-03]
Draft Electoral Amendment Bill Explanatory Memorandum (see Appendix)

SUMMARY
The Committee expressed concern at the delay in getting the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill before it. The Bill has now been certified, rule 159 complied with and it will be introduced and referred to the Committee on 3 September 2003. The Committee programme will be altered to allow passage of the Bill by the end of September.

The Bill amends the Electoral Act and Electoral Commission Act: providing that people may register outside of their district (though they will still be registered in their district of residence); providing a mechanism to correct administrative errors in the certified voters roll; limiting prisoners' voting rights to awaiting-trial prisoners; removing the power of the Commission to create new categories of special voters; laying down voting times; continuing the current electoral system; providing for the redrawing of voting districts; allowing presiding officers to set voting station boundaries; clarifying the Commission's conciliation powers. The Bill amends the Electoral Commission Act: requiring new parties to submit their deeds of foundation and constitution even if they are represented; requiring that deeds of foundation and constitutions of parties be non-discriminatory; allowing the de-registration of parties based on dormancy and discriminatory deeds of foundation or constitutions.

The Committee expressed concern about the possibility of parties that practised discrimination even if their deeds of foundation and constitution were not discriminatory.

The Committee agreed to suspend discussion of the reports on study tours and asked the Chair to raise urgent matters from the tours with the Department. The Alteration of Sex Description Bill will be finalised in the next week. Stakeholders meetings on refugees will continue at the end of October.

MINUTES
The Chair stated that there were only three weeks left in which to deal with the Bill. The manner in which the Bill was handled was unacceptable. The Committee had begged for the legislation; raising concerns about the speed of the legislation at least four months ago - people were not doing their work. The Minister sent his apologies and would not be attending the meeting. The Chair asked the Clerk to read the Minister's letter.

In the letter, the Minister stated that he had a prior engagement and so would be unable to attend the meeting. The Committee should appreciate that he had duties other than his ministerial duties. In future, dates for meetings should be negotiated between the Committee and his personal assistant.

The Chair stated that he had written back to the Minister asking that the Deputy Minister stand in for him at the meeting. He received the reply that legislation is not part of the Deputy Minister's line function and so she could not be deployed for the meeting. The Chair asked for the Committee's response to the Minister's apology.

Ms G Borman (DA) noted that she had not been present at the previous meeting when the decision was taken to invite the Minister. Other Committees of which she is a member had never summoned a Minister to brief the Committee on legislation. The Minister should be treated fairly.

The Chair responded that this was not an appropriate comparison. The Committee had been through a range of officials on this legislation and had decided in the end to call the person with final responsibility for legislation.

Mr R Pillay (NNP) stated that it had been very clear at the previous meeting that the Minister should be present. Clearly, the Department is dysfunctional and the person responsible for the Department is the Minister. The state of the Department was causing a problem for the whole country. The Committee's duty is to take the necessary steps, in Committee and in Parliament, to call the Minister to account. The Minister had apologised was unacceptable and the Committee should take the next step to bring accountability.

Prince N Zulu (IFP) responded that the next step the Committee should take is to find a suitable date. The Minister had said that a suitable date had not been selected because there had been no consultation with him.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) responded that if the Committee were taken through the Bill by the Department officials, negotiating a date with the Minister would be unnecessary and would waste time. The Committee's prerogative is to legislate. That other Committees do not summon Ministers for briefings was irrelevant - there are issues that can be better discussed with the Minister than with officials.

An ANC member stated that the Committee had been dealing with the Bill for the last ten years and it was getting nowhere; the Committee should take up Mr Kalako's suggestion.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) also supported Mr Kalako's suggestion. It was not proper to defend the Minister since the Committee had suggested the presence of the Deputy Minister as an alternative.

Ms A van Wyk (ANC) added her support to Mr Kalako's suggestion. Members should not express indignation simply when it suited them. Members are the custodians of the Bill and of executive accountability.

The Chair stated that voter registration would begin in November 2003. The IEC requires the legislation for regulations. The Parliamentary terms ends at the end of September. If the Committee and Parliament were unable to process the legislation, the IEC would have to shut down and wait. He asked what the current status of the Bill was and whether the Department had complied with rule 159.

Adv K Malatji (Chief Director: Legal Services, Department) stated that his colleague, Mr Mogotsi (Director: Legal Services, Department) would be late since he was under the impression that the meeting started at 10am. The Bill was certified by the State Law Adviser on 29 August 2003 and rule 159 was complied with. The Bill has been referred to Parliament. Mr Mogotsi would have with him the documentation showing this.

Chief K Morwamoche (ANC) stated that the Department appeared uninterested in the Bill. The copies provided to the Committee stated that the Bill had been published in an unnumbered edition of the Government Gazette. The original document should be provided.

The Chair stated that he had interacted with the State Law Adviser and the Parliamentary Legal Adviser on the Bill the previous day. As late as 3pm, the Bill was not before Parliament and rule 159 had not been complied with.

Mr I Pretorius (DA) stated that members were anxious to deal with the Bill - the Committee should get clarity on whether the Bill had been tabled properly.

The Chair adjourned the Committee for ten minutes to call the Chief State Law Adviser and the Parliamentary Legal Adviser.

The Committee reconvened and the Chair asked the Chief State Law Adviser and Parliamentary Legal Adviser to brief the Committee on the Bill's current status.

Mr Daniels (Chief State Law Adviser) stated that the Bill was approved by Cabinet on 20 August 2003 and the Cabinet minute received by the State Law Adviser's office on 25 August 2003. The State Law Adviser's office dealt with the Bill in record time thanks to excellent cooperation by Mr Gilder (Director General, Department) and Adv Malatji. The State Law Adviser is responsible for drafting and certifying Bills. The Bill was especially complex because it amends two Acts. A number of constitutional issues were raised with the State Law Adviser by the Department of Justice and advice was given on their reservations. Mr Daniels said he took a special interest in the Bill and considered it personally, with assistance from other members of the office. The Bill was certified on 29 August 2003.

The Bill was then sent to Parliament and a printed version delivered on 30 August 2003. Mr Daniels spent the weekend proof-reading the Bill and left detailed instructions that the Bill should be typed with corrections and sent to the Department. On the evening of 1 September 2003, he was told that the Parliamentary Legal Adviser's office would only meet with the State Law Advisers on the Bill on 3 September 2003. The matter could not be taken further until the Parliamentary Legal Adviser's reservations were dealt with. The State Law Advisers had completed their work and now awaited instructions.

Mr K Pauw (Parliamentary Legal Adviser) stated that his office had received 25 Bills by 1 August 2003. Bills sent to the office had a turnaround time of approximately three weeks. Unless a Bill is officially fast-tracked, the Parliamentary Legal Advisers must make their contribution, though this is generally limited to questions of language and style. The Bill has not been officially fast-tracked so the Department must comply with all the rules. First, the Bill must be certified, which has happened. Second, rule 159 requires that copies of the Bill be delivered to and received by the Chairperson of the NCOP and the Speaker. Rule 159 has been complied with. Third, the Bill must be published in the Government Gazette. The Parliamentary office is waiting for confirmation that the Bill has been gazetted and for copies of the Bill so that it can be printed. The indication on 1 September 2003 was that they did not have confirmation, so the meeting with the State Law Advisers had been scheduled for 3 September 2003. The Parliamentary office has not yet completed their task; this is not essential though. The Bill could be printed overnight on 2 September 2003 and announced as introduced to Parliament and referred to the Committee on 3 September 2003.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) asked why the Bill had not been fast-tracked.

Mr Pauw responded that the leader of government business had said that the Bill was urgent, but there had been no request for official fast-tracking, which would only have sped things up by one day.

Chief Morwamoche asked if the Bill is a Section 76 or Section 75 Bill.

Mr Daniels replied that the Bill is a Section 75 Bill. The '76' on the cover page is a misprint.

The Chair stated that the Committee would have to work with the NCOP in joint Committees.

Mr Pauw responded that since the Bill is a Section 75 Bill, no joint process is possible except unofficially.

The Chair stated that he was concerned that there was no sense of urgency around the Bill.

Mr Pauw responded that the meeting between the State and Parliamentary Legal Advisers would be held on 2 September 2003 instead of 3 September because of the Bill's urgency. Other measures to speed up the processing of the Bill, such as waiving of the three day rule would require formal motions. The Debate could be scheduled as soon as the Committee voted on the Bill, with the three days between the printing of the Committee's report and the debate waived if necessary. If this rule were waived, it must be ensured that the Bill is printed and available for debate. Further, the practice is that debate does not take place unless Parliament has received a translation of the Bill as introduced.

The Chair asked what the current status of the Bill was.

Mr Pauw replied that the Bill was in a state of final draft just before introduction. The Department could brief the Committee with the Bill in that state, as had happened with about a third of recent Bills. The Bill would be referred on 3 September 2003.

The Chair stated that public hearings had to be included in the programme. After the briefing, the Committee would have to meet on the Bill in the week 8-12 September 2003, and hold hearings in the week 15-19 September. Parties already had their positions on the Bill, so not much time would be needed for that work. This high speed exercise should have been avoided - ordinary people were being denied a chance for full participation. The Chair asked the Department to brief the Committee.

Chief Morwamoche objected that there was a problem since the Committee did not have original copies of the Bill.

The Chair asked that the Committee agree to continue with the briefing - Chief Morwamoche's objection had been noted.

Briefing by Department
[The numbering of Clauses is different in the memorandum and the draft Bill from Clause 5 on. The reference to 'Section 5 of the Draft Bill' in the memorandum is actually to Clause 6 of the Bill. My numbering below follows the draft Bill's numbering first with the memorandum's numbering in square brackets after the first reference to the Clause. Clause 5 of the Draft Bill, unmentioned in the memorandum, amends Section 16 of the Electoral Act adding two subsections: (3) states that the Chief Electoral Officer must, notwithstanding subsection (2), provide a copy of the Voter's roll or a segment thereof, including voters' addresses, to political parties; (4) restricts the use of the information provided under (3) to election purposes.]

Mr Mogotsi (Director: Legal Services, Department) read the explanatory memorandum on the Bill.

Amendments to Electoral Act (73 of 1998)
-
Clause 1 is substituted for Section 3 of the Act so that it only applies to municipal elections to the extent stated in the Municipal Electoral Act.
- Clause 2 amends Section 6 to make clear that persons of sixteen years or older may register as voters to allow them to exercise their right to vote from the day they turn eighteen.
- Clause 3 amends Section 7.
- Clause 4 is substituted for Section 8 so that persons do not have to apply for registration in, though they must be registered in the district in which they ordinarily reside.
- Clause 6[5] deletes Section 19 of the Act - the Section deals with the calling of municipal elections, which is now regulated by the Local Government Municipal Structures Act, 1998.
- Clause 7[6] inserts Sections 24A and 24B into the Act. 24A provides a mechanism to correct errors in the certified voters roll so that administrative mistakes do not lead to persons being disenfranchised or prevent qualified persons from becoming candidates in the election. 24B states that imprisoned persons will be deemed to reside in the district in which the prison is for national and provincial elections [24B also states that only awaiting trial prisoners may vote - this is not mentioned in the memorandum, which mentions the need to discuss prisoners' voting rights in 4.3. See Adv Malatji's reply to Mr Swart's question below.]
- Clause 8[7] repeals Section 32 of the Electoral Act. This provided that the Electoral Commission could enact provisions for municipal elections by regulations. With the passage of the Municipal Electoral Act, this Section is no longer needed and so is deleted.
- Clause 9[8] amends Section 33 of the Electoral Act so that the Electoral Commission no longer has the power to identify categories of persons eligible for special votes beyond those specified in legislation.
- Clause 10[9] is substituted for Section 36 of the Act so that voting times shall run from 7am to 9pm unless otherwise determined by the Commission and provides some technical amendments to the Section for clarity.
- Based on objections from the South African National Council for the Blind that blind people were being treated as people that could not read, Clause 11[10] is substituted for Section 39 so that disabled voters, explicitly including the visually impaired, may be assisted by persons nominated by themselves or by the presiding officer or a voting officer.
- Clause 12[11] amends Section 55 of the Act so that objections are confined to voting and counting issues.
- Clauses 13[12] and 15[14] remove references to 'a candidate' from Sections 56(b) and 59(3)(a)(ii) respectively of the Act.
- Clauses 14[13] and 24[23] insert a new part 6 of Chapter 4(Section 57A) and Schedule 2 respectively. These insertions continue the current electoral system.
- Clause 16[15] inserts a new Section 63A into the Act to provide for the re-delimitation of voting districts, creation of new voting districts and subdivision of voting districts.
- Clause 17[16] amends Section 64 of the Act so that mobile voting stations may only be used where necessary - in large, sparsely populated districts and in prisons. The Clause also provides for technical amendments to the Section.
- Clause 18[17] is substituted for Section 66 of the Act so that the presiding officer, and not the Chief Electoral Officer, sets the boundaries of the voting station before it opens and after consultation with party agents and members of the security service available at that stage. The presiding officer may vary the boundaries if it is necessary to ensure proper control and security and after consultation with party agents and members of the security services available at the station at the time.
- Clause 19[18] amends Section 67 [referred to as Section 65 in the memorandum] of the Act so that the Commission may vary the route and stopping times and locations of mobile voting stations if necessary for a free and fair election - the Chief Electoral Officer must take all reasonable steps to publicise such changes amongst voters in the district in question.
- Clause 20[19] corrects a reference in Section 86 of the Act.
- Clause 21[20] inserts Section 103A, allowing the Commission to attempt to resolve through conciliation disputes brought to its notice by anyone involved in the dispute.
- Clause 22[21] is substituted for Section 104 of the Act. Section 104 provides for access to private places by members, employees and officers of the Electoral Commission if necessary for the exercise of a power or performance of a duty assigned to them under the Act. Clause 22 adds a proviso that reasonable attempts must be made to notify the occupier of such a private place that such access will be necessary.
- Clause 23[22] amends Schedule 1 of the Act. It corrects an incorrect reference in the introductory paragraph. Item 13 is deleted consequent to the substitution of Section 66 since the Chief Electoral Officer no longer determined the boundaries of voting stations. Item 14 is deleted consequent to the substitution of Section 36 - voting times are no longer prescribed by the Commission but by the Act. Item 15 is consequentially renumbered.
- Clause 24[23] inserts the new Schedule 2 [referred to as Schedule 1 in the memorandum] - in tandem with Clause 14, this continues the current electoral system.

Amendments to Electoral Commission Act (51 of 1996)
- Clause 25[24] amends Section 15 of the Act so that all new parties registering with the Commission, including those with current representation formed by means of floor-crossing, must present a properly adopted and signed deed of foundation, a prescribed amount of money and the party's constitution.
- Clause 26[25] amends Section 15A, which prescribes the application requirements for parties that want to register for a particular municipality only, similarly.
- Clause 27[26] amends Section 16 of the Act, so that a party's deed of foundation and constitution may not incite violence, give serious offence or restrict membership or support based on race, gender, sex, ethnic origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture or language. This extends the provision that previous applied only to the name, abbreviated name, distinguishing mark or symbol of the party.
- Clause 28[27] contains an amendment to Section 16 of the Act - a consequence of Clause 27.
- Clause 29[28] inserts Section 16A allowing a party to change its name without having to apply for new registration as a party.
- Clause 30[29] is substituted for Section 17 of the Act so that the Commission may de-register a party that has no representatives and has not participated in an election that took place after its registration or after the date when it was last represented. Parties may also be deregistered if it changes its constitution or deed of foundation in a way that would have disqualified it from registration - changed constitutions or deeds must be submitted to the Commission within two months of the change. If there is a problem, the party may be deregistered after being given a chance to rectify the problem.
- Clause 31[30] contains the short title and the normal provisions for coming into operation.

Discussion
Mr S Swart (ACDP) raised the matter of prisoners' voting rights. Clause 7 of the Bill inserts Section 24B, which states that only awaiting trial prisoners may vote. Paragraph 4.3 of the memorandum suggests that the Section 47(1)(e) provisions of the Constitution on disqualification for membership of the National Assembly be used as a guideline and that only prisoners serving sentences of more than twelve months imprisonment without the option of a fine be disqualified from voting. Is this a point raised for discussion?

Adv Malatji replied that Cabinet had taken the decision that only awaiting trial prisoners should be allowed to vote, as in the inserted 24B(2). The memorandum's comment does not apply.

Mr Swart asked if there was any provision for citizens abroad to vote.

Adv Malatji replied that there were no provisions for this.

Prince Zulu asked what the motivation was for not allowing citizens abroad to vote.

The Chair responded that Cabinet had taken this decision. However, if the Committee decided that citizens abroad must be allowed to vote then they would be allowed to. Members should consider the practical implications of such decisions though and should be realistic.

Mr I Pretorius (DA) asked if parties that are currently registered would have to re-register.

Adv Malatji replied that the provisions applied only to new parties wishing to register.

Chief Morwamoche asked for clarity on when the Provinces would be consulted on the Bill. When the original Bill was discussed, Provinces were involved - would they be brought in on the amendment?

Adv Malatji replied that that was a matter for the Committee and Parliament.

An ANC member asked for clarity on the final sentence of paragraph 29.1 of the memorandum. ['Section 17 of the Electoral Commission Act is accordingly amended to make it possible for a party registration to be cancelled if the party does not have representative (sic) in a legislature and has not participated in a general election that took place after it has been registered or after it last had such a representative.']

The Chair and Mr Mogotsi responded that this applied to parties that had registered but are not represented or have not participated in elections. It allows the deregistration of dormant parties.

Mr Pillay raised paragraph 29.2 and the restrictions on parties' deeds of registration and constitutions. How would a party be dealt with that practised racial discrimination, for example, but did not reflect this practice in its constitution.

Adv Malatji replied that in dealing with party registration, one looked at the documents. It would be difficult to determine whether a party was practising discrimination when considering registration.

The Chair stated that the issue was how to deal with parties that did this. The issue should be flagged for discussion.

The Chair noted that a large number of stakeholders had been consulted in the drafting of the Bill, so there might not be many submissions on it. The Committee must call for submissions as soon as possible and schedule time for public input. The legislation must be passed by the end of September. The Department should attend to getting a translation of the Bill. He would consult with the IEC on the time that they would need - their deadline for voter registration to start in November must be met. Members' cooperation and attendance was critical.

Mr Pretorius, noting that he was expressing a personal view, wondered if briefings by public and private bodies would be necessary. Views had been aired at the Slabbert Commission. Could the Committee discuss this or did the Chair feel strongly on the matter?

The Chair responded that he could not see the Committee passing legislation without public participation. Without such participation, democracy would be undermined.

Mr Pretorius responded that he had simply wondered if hearings would be necessary in this case given the prior long process.

The Chair responded that there might be few or even no submissions on the Bill because of the process, but the Committee could not back away from the principle of public participation.

Prince Zulu asked what the Department meant by consultation [in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill].

Mr Mogotsi replied that the Department gave stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the Bill and make input during the process of drafting it.

The Chair stated that a way had to be found for the views of the under-resourced to be heard - Parliament is far removed from the majority of people.

Chief P Mathebe asked what power the chief electoral officer would have to extend voting hours. What would happen in a case where a party prevented people from reaching a voting station, authorities arrived to end this but the people reached the station after 9pm?

Mr Mogotsi replied that this would be dealt with by the IEC regulations.

Mr Pretorius noted that the Chair had said that he would discuss matters around the Bill with the IEC. Would the Act have to come into operation retrospectively for new districts already created?

The Chair responded that that should be flagged for discussion. The Committee would work with IEC and they would be brought on board at meetings. He would coordinate the programme with the NCOP, the Speaker, and the Chairperson of the NCOP.

Committee Reports
The Chair stated that he had asked members to read the reports on the study tours to Limpopo, kwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng and suggest amendments and additions. The report on the Eastern Cape study tour was before Parliament. He asked if members would prefer to suspend consideration of the reports - time would then be set aside in future meetings to adopt the reports, possibly one per meeting. Members should send any corrections to the Committee Clerk.

The Committee agreed that consideration of the reports be suspended.

Mr Sibande recommended that the Chair take up urgent matters in the reports with the Department.

Chief Morwamoche supported Mr Sibande's suggestion. He reminded the Chair that the Committee had agreed that the Director General and his assistants would be invited to the meeting at which the reports were considered.

The Chair responded that the Director General and assistants would be invited to spend the following week in Cape Town for work on the Bill. He stated that the Committee had to finalise the Alteration of Sex Description Bill the following week - about two organisations wanted to give input on the Bill. The Committee programme would have to be altered. They were supposed to go to Gauteng for stakeholders meetings on refugees, including meetings with refugees present. He would revisit the programme with the Black Sash. The process would be continued at the end of October. The ID campaign may suffer with regard to resources - money had dried up. The Committee had to discuss civic services.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix:
DRAFT ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

 

 

1. The attached draft bill contains proposed amendments to the Electoral Act, 1998 and the Electoral Commission Act, 1996. Explanatory notes in respect of the sections (seriatim) of the draft bill are given below:

Section 1 of the Draft Bill

2. Section 3 of the Electoral Act provides that the Act applies to national, provincial and municipal elections. However, in preparation for the 2000 municipal elections the Local Government; Municipal Electoral Act, 2000 [Municipal Electoral Act] was enacted to introduce new electoral provisions in respect of the newly implemented municipal dispensation. The Electoral Act now only applies to municipal elections to the extent stated in the Municipal Electoral Act. The necessary amendment to section 3 of the Electoral Act is proposed in Section 1 of the drat bill.

Section 2 of the Draft Bill

3. Only citizens of eighteen years or older qualify to vote, and therefore, to be registered as voters. However, to ensure that voters can exercise their right to vote from the day they become eighteen, they are allowed to apply for registration as soon as an identification document has been issued to them (which can happen once they have turned sixteen). An amendment of section 6 of the Act is proposed to make it clear that those aged between sixteen and eighteen may already apply.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Draft Bill

4.1 Section 7(1) of the Electoral Act provides that a person may apply for registration as a voter only for the voting district in which that person is ordinarily resident. Section 8(2) (e) thereupon provides that the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) may only register that person for the voting district for which that person has applied. This means that if a person has erroneously applied for the wrong voting district, the CEO cannot register that person at all.

4.2 It is proposed that section 7(1) of the Electoral Act be amended to delete the requirement that a person may only apply for registration for the voting district where she/he is ordinarily resident. It is further proposed that section 8(2) (c) be deleted and that a provision be inserted in section 8(3) to provide that the CEO must register a person in the voting district where she/he is ordinarily resident. In doing so a more logical regime is established whereby a person merely applies for registration and the CEO places the applicant in the correct voting district.

4.3 It is further proposed that section 8 of the Electoral Act also be amended to provide that the CEO may only register applicants who are eighteen years old or older and who are not serving a sentence of more than 12 month's imprisonment without the option of a fine. This last amendment deals with an outstanding issue, namely whether persons convicted of and sentenced to imprisonment for serious crimes, should be allowed to vote. In 1994 prisoners convicted of murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances and rape (or attempts to commit any of these offences)

-9-

 

and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, were not allowed H vote (Electoral Act, 1993 (Act 202 of 1993)). The 1998 Electoral Act (governing the 1999 elections) however contained no provisions in this regard, probably because there was no intention to give prisoners special votes. When a Constitutional Court judgement changed this at the last moment, the issue, probably because special votes are not available in municipal elections. The question will have to be considered now and the proposal is that the disqualification that applies to membership of the National Assembly (section 47(1 )(e) of the Constitution) be used as a guideline and that prisoners serving sentences of more than twelve months imprisonment without the option of a fine will be disqualified from voting.

Section 5 of the Draft Bill

5. The deletion of section 19 of the Electoral Act is proposed as it deals with the calling of municipal elections which is now regulated by the Local Government:

Municipal Structures Act, 1998.

Section 6 of the Draft Bill

6.1 The voters roll to be used in al election, is the one as it exists on the date of the day the election is proclaimed. This voters roll is then certified for the election and the roll cannot thereafter be corrected. Even if it had been legally possible to do so, it would have been impractical because of the tight election time-tables tha1~ apply.

6.2 In the preparation for and printing of a document with such a massive amount of detail, administrative mistakes are inevitable. They have occurred in the past and will again occur in the future. If such a mistake results in a voter's name appearing on the roll twice, or in more than one voting district, no harm has been done. Bit if the voter's name is mispelt, or his or her ID number is incorrectly printed, or the name is omitted from the roll, or the name appears in the wrong voting district, it could result in a perfectly eligible voter, who had properly applied for registration, being disenfranchised. It may also lead to a qualified person being prevented from becoming a candidate in the election. All this can lead to justified frustration and anger and disillusionment in respect of the fairness of an election; even if only a small number of voters is affected.

6.3 To alleviate such situations, a mechanism was introduced in section 7 of the local

Government: Municipal Electoral Act, 2000, whereby voters who had properly applied for registration, who are eligible to vote but whose names had been omitted from the voters roll of their voting district, or whose details have been incorrectly recorded on the voters roll, could be allowed to vote. The Electoral Act (for provincial and national elections) do not have a similar provision.

6.4 Section 6 of the draft bill proposes the insertion of a new section 24B in the Electoral Act, dealing with the situation of prisoners on election day.

6.5 Section 6 of the draft bill proposes the insertion of such a provision in the Electoral Act; dealing with the situation of prisoners on election day.

6.6 Resulting from a Constitutional Court judgement the Commission had to make special arrangements for prisoners to vote in the 1999 national and provincial elections. For purposes of registration on the voters roll, prisoners were deemed to be ordinarily resident in the prison, and therefore also in the voting district, where they were detained at the time of registration.

6.7 After the 1999 elections, electoral legislation and arrangements were reviewed in preparation for the 2000 municipal general elections. It hen appeared that a prison in any particular municipality were not necessarily populated only by prisoners from that municipality. Invariably prisoners also came from other areas. In the case of some large prisons, nearly as many prisoners would be eligible to vote for the municipal council as residents of the municipality itself. In national and provincial elections this would not have created a problem, but in municipal elections it w as just not acceptable that non-residents should be able to have a major influence on who is elected to the council.

6.8 To address this anomaly the Electoral Act, 1998 (section 7) was amended to provide that for purposes of registration on the voters' roll, prisoners are regarded to be ordinarily resident at the last home or place where they normally lived when not imprisoned or detained.

6.9 This resolved the problem for municipal elections, but now creates new problems for the coming national and provincial elections: on election day very few prisoners will find themselves in the voting district where they are (or can) be registered. It is exactly because of this problem that the Constitutional Court had in 1999 ordered that, in the absence of defining legislation, prisoners must be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the prison where they find themselves.

6.10 Prisoners cannot be taken from a prison to go and vote at a voting station where they are registered. They only way in which prisoners can be given the opportunity to vote in national and provincial elections, is to take a mobile voting station to the prison; but then, for prisoners to vote at that mobile voting station, they will have to be registered for the voting district in which the prison is situated. To this end, section 6 of the draft bill seeks to introduce a provision in the Electoral Act, 1998 (a new section 24B) whereby in national and provincial elections a person who, on election day, is lawfully imprisoned or detained and whose name appears on the voters' roll for another voting district, is deemed for that election day, to have been registered by his or her name having been entered on the voters roll for the voting district in which she or he is so imprisoned or detained.

Section 7 of the Draft Bill

7. At the time when the Electoral Act, 1998 was drafted and passed by Parliament, the new local government structures and their electoral systems had not been finalized (the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, 1998 was passed quite some time after the Electoral Act, 1998). Only measures for national and provincial elections could therefore be spelt out in the Electoral Act. However, at that time, the possibility was still foreseen of municipal general elections being held simultaneously with, or soon after, the national and provincial elections, leaving no time for a municipal electoral act being passed by Parliament. Section 32 was therefore included in the Electoral Act, 1998, giving the Electoral Commission the power to enact such provisions by way of regulations, should the need arise. The Municipal Electoral Act having been passed in the meantime, section 32 can, and should, now be withdrawn. This is being done in section 7 of the draft bill.

Section 8 of the Draft Bill

8.1 Section 33 of the Electoral Act sets out three categories of persons for whom special votes must be provided. The section, however, also authorizes the Electoral Commission to prescribe other categories of persons who may apply for special votes.

8.2 It is proposed in section 8 of the draft bill that the provision permitting the Commission to identify further categories that may qualify for special votes be deleted. The categories to qualify for special votes are essentially political choices Parliament has to make and the decision should not be conferred in the election administration. This provision has led to class actions that obliged the Commission to make last minute arrangements that were highly disruptive of its preparations for the elections.

8.3 The matter of special votes has to be carefully considered. They are not intended to cater for the individual circumstances of voters who may very well on a given voting day for good reasons not be able to cast a vote. They are rather intended to cater for categories of persons who would otherwise consistently not be able to vote. If one has to cater for the individual circumstances of every business person, worker, student and holidaymaker (that will not be the same election after election) then one would have to create a system of prior voting where a sizeable portion, if not the majority, of votes are cast before voting day. Such a system could double the costs of an election, can be highly disruptive for the normal logistical arrangements relating to an election and the training of election day staff and can impact on the ultimate quality and credibility of an election. (Special voting takes place outside of the controlled and transparent voting station situation and marked ballot papers are transported and stored for days out of sight of observers and agents. No matter how securely and properly the special voting process is conducted, the process lends itself to allegations and suspicions of irregularities).

Section 9 of the Draft Bill

9.1 Section 36 of the Electoral Act now provides that the Commission must prescribe voting hours for every election and it must do so by not later than a dalLe stated in the election time table. The effect hereof is that although 07h00 to 21h00 has become the generally accepted voting hours, voting hours for a particular election remain uncertain (and it debated afresh) until fairly late in the electoral process.

9.2 In the Municipal Electoral Act the situation was therefore reversed. Section 45 of the Act provides that the voting hours for a particular election is from 07h00 to 21h00 unless the Commission determines other voting hours for a particular election. This has brought much greater certainty and has eliminated last minutes debates on the issue at every election (or by-election).

9.3 It is proposed that the Electoral Act be brought in line with the Municipal Electoral Act. Section 9 of the draft bill does so. A few minor technical amendments are simultaneously affected for the sake of greater clarity.

Section 10 of the Draft Bill

10.1 Section 39 of the Electoral Act provides for -

(a) the presiding officer or a voting officer to assist a voter, who is unable to read, to vote; and

(b) a person nominated by the voter, to assist a voter with a physical disability to vote.

10.2 After the 1999 national and provincial elections, the South African National Council for the Blind complained bitterly that, invariably, blind people had been treated by presiding officers as people who could not read, and had insisted on themselves marking the ballot papers of blind people. They said that blind voters struggled tq convince presiding officers that they fell in the category of voters who should

allowed to be assisted by a person of their choice.

10.3 In the drafting of the Municipal Electoral Act, it was specifically provided that a presiding officer or a voting officer could only assist voters who could not read (the blind can read Braille) and that they could not assist voters who needed assistance due to a physical disability (visual impairment or blindness is a physical disability). After the Municipal Electoral Act had been passed by Parliament, the blind were still dissatisfied, saying that blindness should have been specifically mentioned in the act. They asked that clear instructions should be given to presiding officers; which was done in the training of presiding and voting officers.

10.4 After the 2000 municipal elections, the Council, alleged that a number of blind voters had still encountered resistance when they asked to be assisted by a friend that they trusted. They again asked for blindness to be specifically mentioned as a physical disability. When it was pointed out that blindness may be interpreted to mean total blindness, it was agreed that the term visually impaired would be used.

10.5 The amendments to section 39 of the Electoral Act, proposed in the draft bill, includes the identification of visual impairment as a physical disability and the exclusion of agents and candidates from the persons that could assist a disabled voter. A presiding officer or a voting officer is not excluded (as it is done in the Municipal Electoral Act) as it is felt that a disabled voter arriving at a voting station without a trusted person to assist him or her, might prefer that the presiding officer or a voting officer should do so.

Section 11 of the Draft Bill

11.1 Section 55 of the Electoral Act provides for "objections material to the final results of an election" to be made to the Commission not later than 21h00 on the second day after voting day. These objections must be decided before the final results are determined and the outcome of the objection (if successful) is taken into account in the determination of the final results. An appeal lies to the Electoral Court.

11.2 Section 65 of the Municipal Electoral Act contains comparable provisions, difference being that here the objections are considered after the results of election (or elections) have been declared. Having considered the objection, Commission must either reject the objection, amend the declared result of election, or rescind the declared result of the objection. An appeal also lies to Electoral Court.

11.3 In 1999 numerous objections were received. Although many were resolved administratively or through conciliation (as allowed by section 92 of the Electoral Act) the Commission still had to deal with large numbers of objections. It managed to do so because it only considered those objections where there had been full compliance with the formal submission requirement and where the objections related mainly to the voting or the counting procedures. The Commission did not consider objections relating to other issues like contraventions of the Code of Conduct - issues where the facts were not easily ascertainable and where it would have been necessary to have "trials" to establish the facts. Such issues were extraneous to the electoral management process and had to be adjudicated either by the Electoral Court or the High Court. The Commission could limit the range of aspects subject to objection, because section 55(1) introduces the objection provisions with the words "Despite Parts 1 to 3...". Parts 1 to 3 deal with the voting and counting processes and objections that can be raised during the course of those processes.

11.4 Under section 65 of the Municipal Electoral Act, things however developed differently. Just as section 55 of the Electoral Act, section 65 of the municipal Electoral Act also provides that any interested party may lodge (make) an objection "concerning any aspect of an election that is material to ... the ... result of an election". The reference to parts 1 to 3 (voting and counting) however, do not appear in section 65. Perhaps this is the reason why the Electoral Court has interpreted that section to also cover aspects far beyond the confines of the voting and counting processes. Thus for instance the Electoral Court has required the Commission (in a particular by-election case) to investigate and conduct a hearing where an objection touched on issues such as that a vacancy should not have been declared, that a candidate had been intimidated and that voters had been stopped quite a distance from a voting station and ordered away. Commissioners dealing with the objection had to travel to a distant town to hold a formal hearing with witnesses and lawyers to cross-examine them and had to decide on disputed facts without having the powers of a court of law.

11.5 The Electoral Court also adopted a more forgiving attitude to objectors who had not complied with the prescribed formalities, resulting in the objection process being drawn out for objectors to be given the opportunity to comply (e.g. by giving notice to other parties involved). Where a single ward by-election is involved, the situation is manageable, but if this approach is followed in respect of a combined national and provincial election, or a municipal general election (+250 elections on the same day), the Commission will just no be able to cope.

11.6 It was never the intention that the section 55 (national and provincial) and 65 (municipal) objection procedures should side-step the courts. Section 55 with its reference to parts 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter 4, indicates that the objection procedures were intended for voting and counting processes only; processes managed by the Commission and where the facts are easily discernable from material that is till in the Commission's possession. Unfortunately such a reference does not appear in section 65 (municipal) which probably prompted the Electoral Court to adopt such an inclusive approach toward the aspects of an election that could be the subject to of an objection.

11.7 To ensure that in future national and provincial elections section 55 objections are confined to voting and counting issues (and thus preventing a chaotic situation arising at a critical time of elections), it is proposed in section 11 of the draft bill that subsection 55(1) of the Electoral Act be substituted by a new subsection making this clear.

Section 12 of the Draft Bill

12.1 Section 56(b) of the Electoral Act provides for certain orders the Electoral Commission or the Electoral Court can make where a serious irregularity has occurred in an election. Amongst other things, the votes cast in favour of a party "or candidate" at a voting station can be deducted from the total of votes cast in favour of that party "or candidate" in that election.

12.2 To eliminate any uncertainty, section 12 of the bill seeks to delete the reference to a candidate from the section.

Section 13 of the Draft Bill

13. The 1999 national and provincial elections were held in terms of a system of representation provide for by way of transitional arrangements in the 1996 Constitution. Provision for electoral systems for future national and provincial elections must be made in national legislation in terms of sections 46 and 105 of the Constitution. Sections 13 and 23 of the Bill contain proposals in this regard. In essence the continuation of the current system is proposed.

Section 14 of the Draft Bill

14. Section 59(3) (a) (ii) of the Electoral Act mentions the registered party "or candidate" represented by an agent. There is no provision in the act for a candidate to be represented by an agent. For the sake of clarity section 14 of the bill seeks to delete the reference to a candidate.

Section 15 of the Draft Bill

15.1 At the moment, the Electoral Act contains provisions for the establishment of "voting districts for the whole of the territory of the Republic", i.e. for the initial division of the country into voting districts (sections 60 and 63). It makes no provision for the redelimitation of voting districts, the creation of new voting districts or the subdivision of voting districts.

15.2 Over the last years it has become necessary for a number of good reasons to so redelimit or subdivide existing voting districts or to create new voting districts. This was done without explicit statutory regulating authority to do so.

15.3 Section 15 of the draft bill seeks to crate such authority by inserting a new section, section 63A, after section 63 of the Electoral Act.

Section 16 of the Draft Bill

16.1 Section 64 of the Electoral Act authorizes, amongst others, the establishment of both a voting station and a mobile voting station in a voting district. Where this is done, copies of the same segment of the voters roll are used in each of the voting stations. The names of voters that have voted in the one voting station are only marked off on the copy of the list used at that voting station, while they remain unmarked on the list used at the other one. Theoretically this may open the way for double voting.

16.2 To ensure that a mobile voting station in addition to an ordinary voting station is only used in those cases where it is really necessary, section 19(2) of the Municipal Electoral Act provides that a mobile voting station may only be used if the voting district is large and sparsely populated and the Commission considers it necessary to assist voter who would otherwise have had to travel long distances to reach the voting station.

16.3 Section 16 of the draft bill amends section 64 of the Electoral Act to also insert these limitations in the Electoral Act and to add a provision that a mobile voting station may also be used to visit a prison. The additional provision is necessary as special voting arrangements are made for a number of categories of voters (including prisoners) in national and provincial elections. There are no special votes in municipal elections.

16.4 The other proposed amendments of section 64 are technical improvements. Section 17 of the Draft Bill

17.1 Section 66 of the Electoral Act provides that for every election, the Chief Electoral Officer must determine the boundary of every voting station. The presiding officer may, on voting day, alter the boundary of a voting station.

17.2 This arrangement is completely impractical. When is came to the drafting of the Municipal Electoral Act, it was provided that the presiding officer, should, before a voting station opens on voting day, and after having consulted with available party agents and security members, determine the boundary of the voting station and visibly mark off that boundary.

17.3 This being a much more practical arrangement, section 17 of the draft bill introduces a similar arrangement in the Electoral Act by the substitution of section 66 thereof.

Section 18 of the Draft Bill

18. Section 65 of the Electoral Act provides for the relocations in emergencies. It does not, however, contain similar provisions for mobile voting stations. Section 18 of the draft bill introduces such provisions in section 65 of the Electoral Act.

Section 19 of the Draft Bill

19. This section merely corrects an incorrect reference in section 86 of the Electoral Act.

Section 20 of the Draft Bill

20. Part 4 of Chapter 7 of the Electoral Act contains "Additional powers and duties of Commission" Section 103(1) in that Part provides that whether the Commission, an officer or the chief electoral officer is required in terms of the Act to decide an objection or an appeal, the Commission or that person attempt to resolve the issue that is the subject of the objection or appeal through conciliation. This formulation may leave the impression that the Commission may not so try to resolve other kinds of disputed or objections that are not by the Act required to be decided by the Commission, e.g. those that are only justifiable by the courts. It is now proposed that a new section 103A be inserted in the Act, making it clear that the Commission may also in such cases, when approached by someone involved, attempt to resolve the issue.

Section 21 of the Draft Bill

21.1 Section 104 of the Electoral Act provides that members, employees and officers of the Electoral Commission have access to private places in the performance of their functions. Section 81 of the Municipal Electoral Act contains a similar provision. When Parliament enacted section 81 it added a proviso that in such a case there must be a reasonable attempt to notify the occupier of the private place in advance.

21.2 Section 21 of the bill seeks to insert a similar proviso in section 104 of the Electoral Act.

Section 22 of the Draft Bill

22. In section 22 of the draft bill, the following amendments to Schedule 1 of the Electoral Act are proposed; Schedule 1 being the election timetable must be complied and published.

  1. The correction of an incorrect figure and an word in the introductory paragraph
  2. The deletion of item 13 being consequential to the amendment of section 66 whereby the chief electoral officer no longer determines the boundaries of all voting stations. This is now done by presiding officers immediately before voting station open on election day.

(c) The deletion of item 14 being consequential of the amendment of section 36 whereby the Commission no longer have to prescribe voting hours for every election. The section itself now prescribes voting hours to be from 07:00 to 21:00 but allow the Commission to determine other hours for an election as a whole for particular voting stations

(d) The consequential renumbering of item 15.

 

Section 23 of the Draft Bill

23. Section 23 inserts the new Schedule 1, dealing with the electoral system, in the Electoral Act.

Section 24 of the Draft Bill

24. Chapter 4 (section 15 to 17) of the Electoral Commission Act, 1996 regulates the registration of political parties. A number of amendments to this regulatory system in proposed.

24.1 Section 15 of the Act provides that parties already represented in Parliament, or a provincial legislature or a municipal council, must, when applying for registration, submit-

(a) a deed of foundation adopted at a meeting of, and signed by, a

prescribed number of qualified voters

(b) a prescribed amount of money; and

(c) proof that a prescribed notice of application has been published in the Gazette.

 

24.2 Parties that have representatives in any one of those bodies, so not have to comply with these requirements, i.e., a prescribed number of voters do not have to support the founding of the party; no registration fee need to be paid and notice of the intention to apply need not be published in the Gazette to enable those opposed to the registration of the newly formed party to raise their objections in time (mostly objections against the new party's name, logo, etc). This distinction was written into the Act in 1996 because the parties already represented in legislature were old established parties with names, abbreviated names and logos that were distinctive and would not confuse voters and they were already been allowed to contest election under controlled circumstances. However, with the implementation of the crossing of the floor legislation, where the floor could also be crossed to newly formed parties, these newly formed parties were already represented in legislatures by the time they applied for registration and thus escaped the requirements on voters support, etc that other new parties are subjected to.

24.3 In order to level the playing field, it is proposed in section 24 of the draft bill that section 15 of the Act be amended so as to subject all new parties to the same registration requirements.

24.4 Section 15 also provides that a new party wishing to apply for registration, can only do so after it has published in the Gazette a fourteen days notice of its intention to do so. This affords other parties the opportunity to object to the registration. The crossing of the floor legislation, however, provides for the formation of new crossing process and requires such anew party to apply for registration within the window period. To enable to do so, the requirement of the pre-publication of a notice is removed for section 15 and a provision is written into section 16 (section 26 of the bill) providing for the publication of such a notice even after the application has been submitted.

Section 25 of the Draft Bill

25. Section 15 A of the Electoral Commission Act prescribes the application requirements for parties that want to register for a particular municipality only. It is proposed in section 25 of the draft bill that section 1 5A be similarly amended for the same reasons.

Section 26 of the Draft Bill

26.1 Section 16 of the Electoral Commission Act provides, inter alia, that an applying party may not be registered if its proposal names abbreviated name, distinguishing mark or symbol contain anything which portrays the propagation or incitement of violence or hatred or which cause serious offence to any section of the population of the grounds of race, gender, sex, ethnic origin, colour, sexual orientation, are, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture or language.

These criteria are, however, not also applied to the party's deed of foundation and its constitution, both documents that must be submitted with the application and therefore forming part of the registration. An amendment to section 16 5 proposed that will make these criteria also applicable to the deed of foundation and the constitution, both being documents perhaps more likely than; name, etc, to contain the kind of objectionable material described in the section.

26.2 Of all the divisions from our past, by far the most to overcome on our road towards a united nation, are the divisions along racial, ethnic and colour lines. If ever we were to eradicate violence, hatred or the giving and taking of serious offence in our political and social lives, we must of everything on our power to prevent party political competition to be embedded in racial divisions.

The commitment in our Constitution to the building of a South Africa free of racism, ethnicity, sexism, etc, should be continuously embraced in all sectors and spheres of society, including the party political sphere. To this end. political parties should restrict membership on racial lines, or seek support exclusively along racial, ethnic or colour lines. To do so would contradict the spirit of the constitution and should therefore disqualify such a party for being registered.

While it is accepted that freedom of association is one of the most important rights in our Constitution, this right should not be abused to perpetuate exclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity or colour. Overt exclusion on this basis will probably constitute at least the giving of offence to other groups and thus disqualify such a party from registration in terms of section 16 as it now stands, but it will be much better to create certainly by specifically writing into the Act that parties that discriminate in such a manner should be disqualified from being registered. This is also done in section 26 of the draft bill.

Section 27 of Draft Bill

27. Section 27 of the draft bill contains an amendment consequential to section 26 of the bill.

Section 28 of the Draft Bill

28. As Chapter 4 of the Electoral Commission Act presently stands, a party that wishes to change its name (as parties ate entitled to do under the Constitution), abbreviated name, distinguishing mark or symbol, it can only do so by applying for a new registration as a party. It is proposed that a new section (16A) be inserted in the Act to make it possible for parties to merely apply for a change in their registered name, etc.

Section 29 of the Draft Bill

29.1 At present the registration of a party can only be cancelled if the Commission is satisfied that it no longer functions; or if the Commission is notified by the party itself that it has dissolved or is intending to dissolve. Nothing prevents a political party from functioning as such without being registered. The sole reason for registering is

that it can only participate in an election if it is registered. There are presently 118 registered parties of which a number have not participated in an election. One gets the impression that in at least some cases the registrations are maintained simply to prevent anyone else from using the name, abbreviated name or logo. Section 17 of the Electoral Commission Act is accordingly amended to make it possible for a party registration to be cancelled if the party does not have representative in a legislature and has not participated in a general election that took place after it has been registered or after it last had such a representative.

29.2 Furthermore a party may, after it has been registered, change its deed of foundation or constitution in such a way that it then contains something that would have disqualified it from registration. It is therefore proposed that section 17 of the Act be further amended to provide that a registered party must within two months after having changed its deed of foundation or constitution, submit a copy of the changed deed of foundation or constitution to the chief electoral officer. If, in the opinion of the Commission, the deed of foundation or the constitution was changed in such a way that it then contained something that would have disqualified it from registration, the Commission is empowered to cancel the party's registration after having afforded the party an opportunity to rectify the problem.

Section 30 of the Draft Bill

30. Section 27 of the draft bill contains the short title and the normal coming into operation provisions.

 

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: