Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 May 1943

Vol. 27 No. 22

Voting Facilities for Blind Persons—Motion.

I move:—

That the Seanad requests the Government to introduce proposals for legislation having for their object to make more secure the secrecy of the ballot for blind persons voting at Parliamentary elections.

I have to apologise to the Seanad in the first instance for not being able to introduce this motion at an earlier date, and I also wish to say that I am grateful to the Seanad for permitting me to hold over the motion until I could attend. This may not be an opportune time for introducing the motion but, on the other hand, it may be opportune to introduce it now, since we have the Minister for Local Government and Public Health here, and since we have just been discussing a Bill dealing with the question of accommodating voters, in general, at the forthcoming election. The resolution that I am proposing is to the effect that the Government should make special accommodation in regard to a certain class of voters, who, by reason of their disability, are a good deal hampered in regard to the secrecy of the ballot, which is guaranteed by our Constitution. All I am asking is that the Government would consider the introduction of some measures to safeguard the secrecy of the ballot in regard to blind persons who may be voting at Parliamentary elections.

It may be said that this is a very small point on which to ask the Minister to exercise Parliamentary legislation, but, as a matter of fact, it is not so small a point as one might think. The number of blind persons in Ireland is very considerable. The number of blind persons on the electoral lists must also be very considerable. In Éire there are between 7,000 and 8,000 known blind persons. That is, probably, an understatement, but I understand that that is an official figure. What happens when a blind person wishes to exercise his right to vote at a Dáil election? He has the power of voting, but he has not the power of ensuring secrecy in marking his vote. In order to record his vote, he has to dictate his choice to the presiding officer in the presence of and subject to the observation of the agents of the several candidates. While the ordinary voter can vote in strict secrecy by marking the paper where nobody can see it except himself, the blind person has to publish, certainly to three persons, and, possibly, to a dozen or 15 persons, the manner in which he is voting. It is quite clear that the observance of secrecy diminishes in high proportion as the number of persons increases to whom the "secret"— the word "secret" being in inverted commas— is confided. It is hard to believe that, where the vote of the person concerned is of any interest to members of the public and when a dozen people know about it, it will remain secret.

The blind person has the same right to secrecy in exercising his vote as has any of the rest of us, and it is inconsiderate to him if the present method cannot be varied so as to preserve the secrecy of his vote. This could be done extremely simply. There is in force in Great Britain an Act which gives a blind person the advantage of voting in complete secrecy as regards any of the officials present at the election. He is entitled to bring with him into the polling booth some intimate friend who, according to the English Act, may be a near relative. To him he dictates his directions as to how his vote is to be placed on the ballot paper. The person who acts as amanuensis—almost as a mechanical amanuensis—is, as I have said, usually a near relative or intimate friend of the voter and is nominated by him. He is bound to secrecy just as much as are the dozen persons who watch a blind elector voting in this country. As he is chosen by the voter with full confidence in his discretion and honour, there is little chance of the vote becoming known to other people who have no right to the knowledge.

When I put down this motion some weeks ago, I had hoped that it would be possible for the Minister to give it full consideration in view of the forthcoming general election. It might be somewhat optimistic if I were to express that hope now. But I do hope that it will receive full consideration and, if possible, be inserted in the law of our country before another general election is held. The Minister may tell me that it would be impossible in the time available to implement this motion. I do not see how the impossibility arises. The matter could be dealt with in a Bill of a few clauses. I do not think that that Bill would raise even as much discussion as took place to-day on the Bill with which we have just dealt. In any event, I hope that, by moving this motion, I have not started as many unexpected hares as were started in the earlier discussion by some of my friends.

I second the motion and I should like to support the case made by Senator Rowlette with all the force and feeling a man can have. Some Senators may have friends and others may have relatives who have had to face one of the biggest tragedies a man or woman can have to face—total blindness. The feelings of these afflicted people are not to be equated with the strict legal forms of a statute. We ought to make every possible concession to such people. It is not that I think returning officers would not be thoughtful and kind and extremely just to these people that I say this but it is because of the peculiar psychology of the blind. Allowance has to be made for that. I do appeal in this matter, if not to the heads of Senators, to their hearts. I have had something to do with blind people and I know how they feel their affliction. I know how that affliction comes up against them in many ways. It is the duty of any Christian to lighten their burden if he can. I appeal to the Minister to make an effort, even in respect of the forthcoming election, on the lines suggested by Senator Rowlette's motion.

I presume that the members of the Seanad are in full sympathy with the object of the motion. We are told that blindness is the worst possible affliction. Insanity, I think, is the worst, but blindness is next in degree. I suggest respectfully to Senator Rowlette that he should alter his motion and after the word "blind" in the third line insert the words "and illiterate". If it is humiliating to a blind person to have to make known his views on polling day in the presence of the personating agents of the different candidates, I am sure it is also humiliating to an illiterate voter, who has to make known his views in the same way. I suggest to Senator Rowlette that he should extend the terms of his motion so as to cover illiterate persons.

I understand that, as the law stands, anybody who is not capable of marking his ballot paper has to vote in the same way as an illiterate voter. The blind person has to run the gauntlet the same as the illiterate voter. That means that somebody has to mark the paper for both. I understand, too, that anybody who is not physically capable of marking his ballot paper must have his paper marked for him in the same way. If we cater for the blind and illiterate voters in this motion, we shall have to go a step further and include anybody who is not capable of marking his ballot paper. I have seen this method of voting carried out and I did not think it was humiliating. It is necessary as a result of the unfortunate disability from which the person suffers. It is unfortunate that a person should suffer from illiteracy and doubly unfortunate that he should suffer from blindness and that he cannot, therefore, mark his paper as he could if he had his sight. I feel, however, that this is a question that cannot be very easily solved because somebody must do it for him and I do not think there is very much publicity attached to the fact that the presiding officer marks the paper in the presence of people who are there to see that he does so in accordance with the wishes of the voter. In a rush of an evening a presiding officer may not take illiterate voters. Usually these people vote at a time when the booths are practically empty so that I do not think there is very much publicity attached to the present system. Naturally we should all like to see voting by these people made as private as possible, but I suggest that this question affects a greater number of people than those who are actually blind.

I am in thorough agreement with the motion, and I do not think anyone will dispute the necessity for some such proposals as are suggested in it. I do not think any comparison can be made between the illiterate voter and the blind voter. The number of blind persons in the country is fairly considerable while illiterate voters are comparatively few. I think, therefore, that we should not go outside the motion as it stands on the Order Paper. With the spread of education, the illiterate voter will practically disappear. We can cure illiteracy but we cannot cure blindness.

I should also like to see the illiterate voter provided for as well as the blind voter.

The motion may not be widened beyond the present terms of the motion. Any reference, therefore to matters which are not covered by it is irrelevant.

I think Senator Dr. Rowlette indicated the real kernel of this question, that blind people are often highly cultured people and that they are very sensitive in regard to the restrictions imposed upon them in exercising the franchise and in being classed with illiterates. I think if it has been found possible in other countries to devise means by which the self-respect of these people is preserved in such a simple matter, we should not be behind in making similar arrangements. I would therefore plead with the Minister to give very careful attention to the case which has been made by Senator Dr. Rowlette.

I also should like to support this motion and I agree with every word stated by Senator Mrs. Concannon. I think we should not allow this matter, which is a comparatively simple matter, to be mixed up with a question which is to a large extent another problem. To the best of my belief, the arrangements which have been made in England apply only to the blind, and to my own knowledge a certain number of blind voters in this country do not vote at all because of sensitiveness. If a voter is competent to express a preference in favour of any particular candidate, he should be quite competent to choose a person who would act on his behalf in voting for him. In that simple way the matter could be dealt with with the maximum of satisfaction to blind persons and without any conceivable danger to the State. I am sorry that this question was not raised earlier, but Senator Dr. Rowlette unfortunately became ill. I think we are all to some extent to blame in not raising it a year or two ago when it could have been dealt with at our leisure. The fact that there is a system in force in the neighbouring island, that there has been some experience of that system and that as far as we know it has worked to the satisfaction of all concerned, should indicate that it is quite possible to put through, for this election at any rate, a simple Bill as quickly as the last Bill was put through. I would urge the Minister carefully to consider the matter.

I am afraid that there are a number of conditions affecting this matter that Senators who have spoken in favour of the motion may possibly have overlooked. I may say that the question of formulating legislative proposals to amend the procedure by which blind and other physically incapacitated persons may have physical assistance in marking their papers has been under consideration, and that that consideration has disclosed a number of fundamental principles which have to be regarded when we are dealing with this matter. These fundamental considerations are, first of all, that we must be sure that the person casting the vote is the person rightly entitled to do so; secondly, that the secrecy of the ballot is preserved and thirdly, that the vote is cast in accordance with the wishes of the rightful voter. I think that the provisions of the existing law have been drawn as appropriately as possible to secure these three ends.

Under the existing law, not alone the blind, but persons suffering from physical incapacity who cannot mark their own papers, may request the presiding officer, but only the presiding officer, to assist them in having their papers marked. The presiding officer, as we know, asks the voter to state the candidates for whom he wishes to vote, and in what order. He then marks the paper in the presence of the agents who may be lawfully present, and here the question of preserving the secrecy of the ballot comes in. The only people who may be present when a vote is being marked in this way are people who have taken a declaration of secrecy, and it is proper to point out that a breach of a declaration of secrecy involves a very severe penalty. I am not sure that it would be possible to devise any other procedure which would give the same guarantee of secrecy as the existing procedure. If the presiding officer alone were allowed to mark the paper, unseen by anyone, it is clear to the House that the secrecy of the ballot would be well preserved, because not alone would the presiding officer be bound by his undertaking to preserve secrecy, but, in addition, he would have so many papers to issue that I doubt whether it would be within the capacity of any man to remember at the end of a polling day how a particular person voted.

But we have to remember this: that the person voting has not himself a sole and exclusive right of ensuring that the ballot paper is marked in accordance with his wishes. Every candidate in the election, and extending the idea further, I may say that every elector in the constituency and in the country has an interest in securing that where a ballot paper has to be marked by an agent on behalf of a voter, that the paper is properly marked in accordance with the voter's expressed wish. Unfortunately, the history of elections, not only in this country but elsewhere, has been such that when this procedure was devised, very few would have been prepared to trust a presiding officer absolutely to do this, and therefore the law provided that the paper must be marked in the presence of the agents of the several candidates, those other people who, as well as the voter, have a statutory right to see that proper precautions are taken to ensure that the voting paper will be marked in accordance with the wishes of the rightful voter.

Again, in order to preserve the secrecy of the ballot, the agents or other interested parties who are present are also bound to secrecy, and the fact that they are present when the paper is being marked is a guarantee that it will be marked as the voter desires. If a relative accompanies a blind person and marks the paper it is a presumption, but it is only a presumption, that the relative will mark the paper in accordance with the voter's directions. There can be no check and the relative will know and will certainly remember how the blind person voted. Therefore, secrecy of the ballot under the procedure which has been suggested would, in my view, be more greatly endangered than it is under the existing method. It is true that a blind person might not be compelled to tell his relative; he might prefer to entrust the marking of his paper to the presiding officer rather than to a member of his own household.

Those of us who have gone through elections over a considerable period of years are well aware of the fact that members of the same family very often do not want to allow other members of the household to know how they voted. We know there may be different political opinions within families, that, husbands and wives often take separate sides as well as parents and children in these matters, and we have no guaran- tee, therefore, that one of two things may not happen. First of all, the blind person may be unwilling to ask a relative to mark his ballot paper, and secondly, what I think is more important, we have no guarantee that the relative will comply with his wishes. It is clear, therefore, from what I have said, that to do exactly what the motion requires, that is to say, "to make more secure the secrecy of the ballot for blind persons", is not so very easy. If some supervision be not exercised over the agent employed by the afflicted voter, there is the possibility not only that the confidence of the latter may be abused but that wider interests than personal interests may be affected. Again, I want to emphasise the point that no voter has a sole and exclusive right in seeing that his ballot paper is marked in accordance with the way in which he wishes to cast his vote. He has the sole right to cast his vote, but other people are interested in the procedure which is adopted to ensure that the wishes of the voter are carried out to the letter.

The question of voting facilities for the blind, however, I may say, warrants examination from another point of view. As the law stands at present, if a blind voter presents himself or herself at the polling booth before 5 o'clock in the afternoon, he or she is entitled to vote, and for that purpose the booth or room in which the vote is taken is, as a rule, cleared of every person other than those lawfully entitled to be present, that is to say, other than those who have taken a declaration of secrecy. Blind and other persons physically incapacitated often present themselves after 5 o'clock at which time the presiding officer may disregard their requests for assistance in marking their papers. To disregard such an appeal seems inconsiderate and harsh, and may, and to my own knowledge often has, occasioned an unpleasant scene, but, on the other hand, to give way or accede to it, may inconvenience a multitude of voters who sometimes may even be deprived of their vote by the closing of the poll. This is an aspect of the matter to which I have been giving consideration.

I am not so sure at all that, if this motion were being discussed in the other House where people, perhaps, are more familiar with the difficulties which attend the taking of a poll than members of the Seanad are, there would be any great demand for a change in the law at all, but, looking at it from another point of view, from the point of view of general convenience, and the right of the general body of the electorate, I am having the question examined, and if I am satisfied that the Bill will have an easy passage, I may be able with the approval of the Government to do something to deal with the situation in time for the coming election, but I want to impress on the House that it is not at all the simple matter which is being represented to us here.

There are vital and fundamental considerations to be taken into account, and if, for instance, I were satisfied that there was danger that the secrecy of the ballot would not be preserved, or that the new procedure which has been suggested would be abused—and I am not clear in my own mind that that procedure might not be abused, and that the machinery which would have to be provided to prove close relationship with the voter would not be too cumbersome—I would consider drafting a Bill. But as I have said, the Bill would have to run the gauntlet of persons very experienced in these matters who can see all the objections I have mentioned, and could perhaps even see stronger objections to the course proposed.

I felt disappointed with the greater part of the Minister's speech, but he gave me some gleam of hope at the end when he said he would consider the matter. If he were able to see around some of the objections which loom large in his mind and the minds of other people, probably his advisers, he said he would examine if anything could be done in the direction I have suggested. When I say I was disappointed at the greater part of his speech, I do not mean that I was disappointed because he was not accepting my suggestion— one hardly expects a Minister to be always ready to accept a suggestion made to him—but because of the weakness of the case he made in criticism of what I put up in favour of this change in the law. He is, naturally and properly, very anxious to maintain the secrecy and efficacy of the ballot as representing the opinions of the separate voters, but I would point out to him, without repeating what I have said, that the secrecy of the ballot would be very much better preserved under the system I am suggesting than under the present system. There is no secrecy where a dozen people are in the secret; it ceases to be a secret. To say that they have taken a declaration of secrecy does not mean that there is no danger of a leakage. Under the alternative suggestion which I have made, that the voter would bring in his own amanuensis with him, who would also make a declaration of secrecy, only one person is in the secret, and it is much more likely to be well preserved than where a dozen or more people are in it. The Minister is anxious, of course, that the voter's wish should be explicit on the ballot paper. I suggest that that is better secured or as well secured by the method I have suggested. The vote must be in agreement with the voter's wish; it is in order to make that more efficacious that I put forward this suggestion to-day.

In speaking of the method in vogue in England where they have had several years' experience of special methods of voting for blind voters, I said that the amanuensis—the person who actually marks the paper—was usually a relative of the voter. In fact the British practice is that the person who marks the paper is either a person entitled to vote at the election or the father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son or daughter of the blind person. The blind person has a wide choice, and it is a strange thing if even a blind man cannot choose one honest person from amongst that list. There are no grounds for the suggestion that the secret is not as safe in the hands of that one person chosen with the confidence of the voter as it is in the hands of a dozen people who are strangers to him. The point as to whether the officers present in the polling booth have any desire to know how he votes is entirely outside the issue. The point is that his vote is known to a dozen people. Whether or not they have an interest in the matter is beside the point. The Minister's rather pathetic reference to the differences that exist in families—it is an obvious fact, of course—would be met if a clause similar to that in the British Act were in force here, so that the person who marks the paper may be either a near relative or another voter at the election.

I was interested in the suggestions— which I anticipated—that were made by Senator Healy and Senator O'Donovan as to other persons who are disabled to the same extent as blind persons. I had that point in mind, of course, and thought it might be met. I have no objection to those persons being included, but I have raised the single question of blind persons, and you, Sir, have ruled that I cannot go beyond that. If the Minister thinks fit to bring in a Bill giving relief to those persons who are physically disabled or illiterate, I certainly will give it what support I can in this House. It is a somewhat different principle from that dealing with the blind, and at any rate I am debarred from discussing it to-day.

There is another advantage which would be gained by adopting the method I have suggested, and that is that not nearly as much time would be wasted. At present we are told that from 5 o'clock onwards, that is within four hours of the closing of the poll, a person who wants assistance in regard to casting his vote may be refused by the presiding officer, because there is a danger of having the polling booths crowded and other people prevented from voting. That, of course, is a reasonable precaution. Under my suggestion, instead of having anything up to a dozen people concerned in the vote of the blind man, only two people are concerned—the amanuensis who comes with the blind man, and the presiding officer who hands out the paper and who administers the oath, if an oath is necessary, to the amanuensis. Under that suggestion, much less time is taken than if the whole party present in the polling booth have to inspect the method of casting the vote.

The Minister made some remarks that I think may have been misunderstood. I certainly would have misunderstood them myself if it were not that I knew that the more obvious meaning was one which it was impossible for him to intend. I refer to his suggestion that all the voters are interested in how a particular voter votes. The public, the whole electorate, is certainly interested in making sure that his vote is cast in accordance with his wishes that his vote does really express the wish of the voter, but the number of times which the Minister repeated that they were interested in it as well as the voter—he did not say as much as the voter, I think—suggested that they have the right to inspect the vote.

Not at all. That is a preposterous interpretation to put on what I said.

I quite realise that, and I did not put that interpretation on it myself, but I think many Senators listening to him thought there was some such intention behind what the Minister said. I realise that that could not be what he had in mind, and I am glad he has made that explicit. But the whole force of the greater part of his argument falls to the ground with that admission which the Minister has made now. I have listened with every sympathy to the Minister making the case against my suggestion, but I found no argument or statement in it that I did not meet when I introduced the resolution half an hour ago. I welcome the degree of sympathy which the Minister has given to the question, and his statement that he is prepared to give further consideration to methods for protecting the interests of the blind, and, if he chooses, of those who are handicapped in marking the voting paper or are illiterate. I hope that, when he gives more study to the question, he will take a different view, and pay less attention to a study of the bogies which seem to exist mainly in his own mind to-day.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Top
Share