GECOM cannot be responsible for disenfranchising a particular class of elector

Dear Editor,

The National Recount of ballots cast at the March 2, 2020 elections has revealed a tsunami of questioned ballots that must be resolved before a final declaration. Questioned ballots generally arise during the counting process when a counting agent, or candidate, questions or disputes the allocation of votes to a particular political party. These ballots are marked with a “Q” at the back for a later determination, when a recount is granted, and the initial allocation may be overturned or varied.

Counting agents for APNU+AFC have questioned and disputed the allocation of a large number of votes to the PPP/C on the following basis:
1. Elector is deceased;
2. Elector was absent from the jurisdiction and could not present himself/herself at the polling station on Election Day;
3. The absence of the Poll Book, with the pertinent entry, and accompanying Oath of Identity form invalidates the vote cast by elector voting without ID; and
4. The absence of the Poll Book, with the pertinent entry, and accompanying Certificate of Employment (COE) invalidates vote cast by elector voting with COE.

It is my contention that these are all legitimate and valid reasons to question the allocation of these votes to the PPP/C, or any other political party, and to demand that these votes be nullified and taken away. It is also my understanding that GECOM’s decisions in these matters are final and not subject to the jurisdiction of any court.

With regards to the question of the rejection of Disciplined Services ballots for want of official mark, it is my understanding that the rejection of unstamped ballots was intended as a measure to forestall the unauthorized placement of ballots into the ballot box or “padding” and not a cynical ploy to disenfranchise genuine electors. I do not believe that the non-action, accidental or intended, by a Presiding Officer, whose responsibility it is to affix the official stamp to every ballot paper, should be the basis for disqualifying an otherwise valid ballot. GECOM cannot be responsible for disenfranchising a particular class of elector. This, too, must be reversed.

Sincerely,
Oscar Dolphin