Changes to registration and electoral processes: Capacity and resilience implications
Individually each new provision is technically achievable. However, the Association of Electoral Administrators has highlighted the cumulative impact of these changes to an already fragile system will create capacity and resilience issues.
Due to the increasing complexity of registration and election processes over the last 20 years, electoral services teams already work incredibly hard in the run-up to local elections with significant amounts of overtime and weekend working.
For the extraordinary elections of May 2021, many councils used the ‘one council’ approach, meaning they drew capacity from across the council to run local elections, with elections staff acting as experts on the process. However, this may not be sustainable in the long term and fails to account for the added complexity created by the new provisions, which will require specialist knowledge to navigate.
Registration costs relating to all-year-round registrations and postal and proxy are entirely the responsibility of registering authorities. Therefore, they cannot be recouped from the relevant authority as with election costs. This is the case for all election types, including unplanned snap General Elections.
Some of the provisions put additional responsibility and duties on polling staff. Councils already find it difficult to recruit polling staff given the low pay and long days required. During the most recent elections, the Cabinet Office agreed that premium payments could be offered where necessary to encourage more people to volunteer. If this kind of premium is required to encourage people to volunteer as polling staff, the costs of delivering elections may dramatically increase the cost of staffing.
Polling staff will also be more involved in enforcing new rules associated with Voter ID, including refusing a ballot and referring a person to the Presiding Officer. Dealing with unhappy members of the public and enforcing the rules requires an entirely different skill set and a willingness to deal with difficult situations, often without any enforcement presence from police at polling stations to assist. This may also make it more challenging to recruit and retain polling staff.
A key aspect of the legislation is the timing of implementation. Electoral administrators have said they would be very concerned if all these provisions were applied first to a general election year. This is because the turnout for general elections is substantially higher at about 65 per cent compared to 35 per cent for local elections. So there is more risk associated with implementing these new provisions in a general election year.
Changes to registration and electoral processes: Financial implications
Significant financial implications were identified as part of the Explanatory Notes for the Bill. These costs related to implementing new provisions on voter identification, postal and proxy voting, and assistance for disabled voters, including training, administration of Voter Cards applications, Voter Cards' production, and enabling Returning Officers to comply with new responsibilities around the accessibility of voting. The registration of overseas electors and changes to EU voting and candidacy rights were also identified as an additional cost.
Government has previously confirmed that the costs of the Voter ID scheme will be centrally funded.
The Cabinet Office’s financial assessment of the Bill predicts annual costs of £8.5 million per annual to cover additional costs of larger poll cards with envelopes, the Voter Card scheme and costs of extending the franchise to Overseas voters.
Changes that add complexity and additional duties to Returning Officers and the election teams under them will put additional strain on finite election resources in councils. As a result, additional funding and other mitigations may be required to build capacity, maintain the capability of staff in the registration and elections system, and ensure the resilience of electoral processes. AEA has recently highlighted these issues in their reports, the 2021 Post-Poll Review and a Blueprint for the future of electoral landscape.
It is essential that any additional burdens associated with the introduction of new registration and electoral processes are centrally funded on an ongoing basis.
The new electoral sanction for intimidation
The Association of Electoral Administration lobbied for Returning Officers and electoral staff to be protected alongside candidates, campaigners and elected members in the new offence for intimidation. Officers are a vital part of the electoral system without which elections could not occur. Without the protection of the new electoral sanction, they remain vulnerable to intimidation due to their role in running elections.
The LGA has previously called for a new offence for intimidating elected members and candidates as part of the Civility in Public Life programme, which aims to protect the integrity of local democracy and debate. However, it should go further to protect officers who are integral to the running of elections.
Equality Impact Assessment of the new provisions
The Cabinet Office Equality Impact assessment for the Bill is available online. It is noted in the assessment that a recently commissioned found that 98 per cent of respondents had some form of acceptable photographic identification.
Some groups were marginally less likely to have acceptable ID, including 50-69-year-olds, mixed/multiple ethnic groups, Asian/Asian British groups, Black/African/Caribbean/Black British groups, and other disabled people. Research elsewhere suggests that White Gypsy or Irish Travellers are more likely not to have acceptable ID. Disabled people who responded to the survey, particularly those with severe disabilities, felt that the ID requirement would make it difficult or very difficult to vote.
General and targeted communications campaigns were suggested as mitigations for the majority of these issues. In addition, the requirement to provide a private viewing area for voters who use face covering is also included as a mitigation in the legislation.
Implications of digital imprints
The LGA has previously called for digital imprints as part of our Civility in Public Life programme. Mis- and dis-information can have a devastating effect on the integrity of local democracy. Outside of the election period, councils can be affected by deliberate misinformation campaigns. Digital imprints may help prevent the production and spread of misinformation during the election period and throughout the year.
Other related potential policy changes – Dissolution and Calling for Parliament Bill
The Dissolution and Calling for Parliament Bill, which makes provisions including the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, was debated on 6 July. Within the debate, MP Craig Whittaker suggested that the electoral timetable that was lengthened from 17 days to 25 days by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 should be shortened to reduce the amount of time between the dissolution of parliament and the new parliament.
This would have significant implications for the administration of elections, and stakeholders like AEA believe that the electoral timetable should be lengthened to 30 days and strongly oppose the reversion to a 17 day given the complexity of electoral processes.