Tairgim:
Go léafar an Bille den Tarna Uair anois.
Mar is eol do Theachtaí tugadh cúis os chomhair na gCúirteanna a rá go bhfuil forálacha áirithe den dlí a bhaineann le toghcháin in achrann le hAirteagal 16 den Bhunreacht a deireann gur le rún-bhallóid a déanfar an vótáil i dtoghcháin do Dháil Éireann. Faoin dlí mar atá sí faoi láthair, caithfear uimhir an vótálaithe a scríobh ar chomhdhuille an pháipéar ballóide a tugtar dó; caithfear an sraithuimhir chéanna a bheith ar an bpáipéar ballóide agus ar an gcomhdhuille; caithfear na páipéirí ballóide agus na comhdhuilleanna a choimeád ar feadh bliana agus d'féadfaí na caipéisí seo a scrúdú ar ordú ón Dáil nó ón Árdchúirt. Dúradh go bhféadfaí trín chleachtadh seo an páipéar ballóide a úsáidigh vótálaí ar bith a chur in aithint agus go bhféadfaí a fháil amach chonas a chaith sé a vóta. Uime sin, dúradh go raibh an cleachtadh in achrann leis an bhforáil faoi rún-bhallóid sa Bhunreacht. D'aontaigh an Ardchúirt go raibh altanna áirithe den dlí toghchánach neamhbhunreachtúil agus tar éis achomharc an Árd-Aighne a mheas chinntigh an Chúirt Uachtarach an bhreith seo.
The purpose of this short Bill is to deal with the situation arising from the Supreme Court decision on the secrecy of the ballot. The effect of a declaration of unconstitutionality is to remove from the law the provisions declared to be unconstitutional, and the law, excluding such provisions, continues to have effect. The Dáil electoral law must therefore now be read as excluding the particular provisions found to be unconstitutional and at future Dáil elections the elector's number may not be written on the counterfoil of the ballot paper, but procedure otherwise —including the provision for serial numbers on the ballot papers and counterfoils—will remain unaltered. Amendment of the Dáil electoral law is not, therefore, essential and an election could be held without amending the law but it is desirable that it should be tidied up.
The law relating to Presidential and Seanad elections was not at issue on the court case but a procedure identical with the Dáil election procedure for entering the elector's number on the counterfoil of his ballot paper is contained in each of these codes. The Constitution provides that voting at Presidential and Seanad elections shall be by secret ballot and difficulty would, therefore, arise in relation to the conduct of these elections. It would clearly be improper to comply with procedure which has been found to be unconstitutional in the context of Dáil elections, but clear authority to depart from this procedure would be lacking. It is necessary, therefore, to amend the law before a Presidential or Seanad election can be held.
The Referendum Acts also contain provision for inserting the elector's number on the counterfoil of his ballot paper. While there is no specific provision in the Constitution requiring that referenda be conducted by secret ballot, it is clearly desirable that a vote at a referendum should enjoy the same protection of secrecy as a vote at a Dáil. Presidential or Seanad election and the Bill also proposes to amend the procedure at a referendum. Detailed procedure at local elections is contained in regulations and it is proposed to amend these regulations before the next local elections.
The courts did not advert to another procedure in the electoral law by which a ballot paper could conceivably be traced back to an individual elector after the election. This procedure is contained in the postal voting rules which are common to Dáil and Presidential elections and referenda. In accordance with this procedure the form of receipt signed by the postal voter indicates the serial number of the ballot paper received by him. As in the case of other election documents the receipts are retained for a year and it would be possible by reference to the receipts and the ballot papers to find out how an individual elector voted.
It would, of course, be necessary to have an order from the Dáil or the High Court to obtain access to these documents. However, the provisions found unconstitutional by the courts were struck down not on the basis that there was likelihood that the manner in which an elector voted could be ascertained but on the ground that there was a theoretical possibility, however remote, that this could be done. Accordingly, under the arrangement proposed in the Bill a postal voter will in future simply acknowledge receipt of a ballot paper without specifying the number of such ballot paper. The Bill also makes the necessary minor consequential changes in the postal voting rules. Corresponding changes are proposed in the procedure at Seanad elections where voting is entirely by post.
Deputies are no doubt familiar with the system of voting for the election of Panel members to the Seanad. The elector is required to produce his voting papers to a prescribed person, that is to say the Clerk or Clerk Assistant of the Dáil or Seanad. County Registrar, City or County Manager, County Secretary or Garda Superintendent, who witnesses the elector's signature on the declaration of identity and signs a certificate which is then attached to the envelope sent to the Seanad Returning Officer. The purpose of this arrangement is to make it impossible for anybody other than the elector to whom the particular ballot papers were sent to vote by means of these ballot papers.
This safeguard will be somewhat weakened by the fact that the declaration of identity and the ballot paper envelope will no longer show the serial number of the ballot papers. Subsection 5 (e) of the Bill seeks to remedy this by requiring the prescribed person to destroy each outer envelope, that is to say, the envelope addressed to the elector, produced to him and thus ensure that an elector, having already voted by means of his own papers, cannot subsequently produce his own outer envelope and another elector's ballot papers to a second prescribed person.
It will be seen that the Bill prescribes new forms of ballot papers for use at Dáil and presidential elections and referenda. These new forms are identical with the forms at present prescribed except that the space for the insertion of the voter's number on the counterfoil has been removed.
Some wrong impressions seem to have gone abroad about the effect of the court ruling and I would like to correct these. The only procedure found to be unconstitutional was the practice of writing the elector's number on the counterfoil of his ballot paper. The courts were also invited to declare it unconstitutional to have serial numbers on ballot papers and counterfoils but did not do so. The serial number will, therefore, be staying. It has been said also that it will now be impossible to prevent or detect personation. This is quite incorrect. In the future as in the past, the prevention of personation will depend on the vigilance of presiding officers, personation agents and gardaí present at polling stations. In the future as in the past, conviction for personation will depend on the evidence of these officers and agents. The only difference now is that it will no longer be possible for an election court trying an election petition to identify and exclude corrupt votes and order a new count to be carried out excluding such votes. To put this in perspective, it should be remembered that we have not had a Parliamentary election petition since the State was founded.
I have no doubt that the House appreciates the importance of having these necessary amendments to the various electoral codes effected as quickly as possible and I am confident that the House will see fit to give the measure a quick passage. The Bill is purely a technical measure, its sole purpose being to deal with the situation arising from the Supreme Court ruling, and on this basis I commend it to the House.
