Written evidence from Dr S. Rebecca Bamford (EUR 90)

 

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Lessons Learned from the EU Referendum inquiry

 

 

Executive Summary

 

  1. Introduction
  2. My experience of applying to vote by post
  3. My experience of completing a postal vote
  4. My experience of submitting a postal vote
  5. Overseas voter disenfranchisement in the EU referendum
  6. Voter eligibility and enfranchisement in referenda
  7. Summary of recommendations

 

 

Evidence to the Committee

 

  1. Introduction: I am a British citizen, who was eligible to vote in the recent EU referendum and who attempted to do so in good faith. I am also currently a lawful permanent resident of the United States of America, where I live and work as a professor of philosophy. I grew up and received my education entirely in the UK, including a doctoral degree in philosophy from Durham University. I am writing to you in a personal capacity, as a British citizen living abroad, in order to provide the committee with some evidence concerning problems with postal voting from overseas.

 

  1. My experience of applying to vote by post: I applied as soon as possible to vote in the EU referendum. As I was lawfully resident in Leeds, West Yorkshire prior to leaving the UK, I applied to vote via Electoral Services in Leeds. I found it very helpful to be able to apply for my vote electronically, and experienced no problems with the application process. My application to vote was accepted without incident, and my ballot packet (including ballot paper, envelopes, labels, and instructions), arrived some weeks prior to the referendum date.

 

  1. My experience of completing a postal vote: When I opened my ballot packet to vote, I noticed some discrepancies in the instructions included. Some of the instructions were written on the assumption that I was voting from within the UK, and did not match the materials provided. For example, the instructions stated that I should use the brown envelope, but no brown envelope was included in the ballot packet I received — only white envelopes. Other instructions were very poorly phrased; for instance, the instructions on whether or not to use label B were extremely unclear. While I was able — eventually — to work out what I needed to do to complete my vote and prepare it correctly for posting, people with relevant disabilities pertaining to interpreting complex textual information, or whose first language is not English, or who are less educationally privileged, may not have been able to do so. I would like the committee to note that the current format of the postal ballot constitutes an access barrier to the exercise of the democratic right to vote in a UK electoral exercise, and requires revision.
  2. My experience of submitting a postal vote: With my vote cast and properly sealed in the correct envelope, I then tried to post it back to the UK. Because I had read a newspaper report concerning problems with mailing postal votes, as experienced by UK citizens living in Germany (The Independent, June 7 2016: <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-referendum-thousands-of-expat-votes-feared-lost-in-germany-following-post-office-confusion-a7069856.html>), I went into my local United States Postal Service (USPS) office to double-check on whether or not a ballot envelope bearing UK government franking and no other postage would be accepted. A USPS official stated that the USPS would not accept UK government pre-paid franking. This directly contradicts the instructions in the ballot packet that no extra postage payment was required. I paid $1.15 to return my vote to the UK by post in time for my vote to be counted. I considered returning my vote by a mail courier such as FedEx, but because such services typically require a named recipient and because I thought that could cause confusion in the case of a postal vote, I decided that my vote had a better chance of reaching the UK on time if I simply paid for first class postage. The USPS official with whom I spoke further informed me that if I had not asked for clarification but had simply placed the envelope containing my vote into a post box without adding any extra postage, the envelope would almost certainly never have reached the UK, and would certainly not have done so in time for the referendum deadline. I would like the committee to note that the instruction that UK government franking is sufficient to ensure return of ballots by post is seriously misleading, and constitutes another barrier to one’s exercising of the democratic right to vote in a UK electoral exercise. Moreover, the broad issue of international postage costs for overseas postal votes should be addressed.

 

  1. Overseas voter disenfranchisement in the EU referendum: Friends of mine, also UK citizens living overseas eligible to vote by post, told me that despite them having properly and lawfully applied for postal votes well in advance of the referendum postal vote deadline, they only received their ballot packets after June 23 2016, by which time it was impossible to return their votes in time for counting. Similar information concerning the disenfranchisement of at least 500 UK citizens living overseas who were eligible to vote by post was made public in newspaper reports (The Independent, June 25 2016 < http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-disenfranchised-expats-denied-eu-referendum-missing-postal-votes-demand-re-run-hundreds-a7103066.html> & The Independent, July 7 2016: < http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-postal-votes-missing-late-not-received-eu-referendum-electoral-commission-post-a7125711.html>). These are cases of which we have some knowledge; however, as my remark on international recognition of government franking in paragraph (4) above suggests, there may be many more UK citizens living in the US (or other overseas nations) who believe that they voted in the EU referendum but whose votes in fact never reached the UK and were never counted, because UK government franking is not as widely accepted as is claimed. Even my own vote may never have arrived in the UK, despite my own best efforts to ensure that it did so. I would like the committee, or some other appropriate unbiased authority, to investigate the disenfranchisement of UK citizens living abroad who were eligible to vote in the EU referendum and who applied to vote by post prior to the deadline. While anecdote and media reports cannot substitute for proper analysis, I would also like the committee to note that on the basis of the evidence that is currently available, it already seems reasonable to claim that UK citizens eligible to vote in the EU referendum, and who applied to vote in good time and in accordance with UK electoral regulations, were prevented from fully and lawfully exercising their democratic right to vote in the EU referendum.

 

  1. Voter eligibility and enfranchisement in referenda: UK citizens who have lived overseas for more than 15 years currently lose the right to vote in parliamentary elections, and were unable to vote in the EU referendum. The practical and legal reason is because electoral records are not required to be kept for longer than 15 years. It has been widely acknowledged that 15 years is an arbitrary cut-off point (The Guardian, 28 April 2016 <http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/28/british-expats-lose-legal-battle-right-to-vote-eu-referendum>). I live overseas because I found a permanent academic job in my field in the US, and did not find such a job in the UK. I still return to the UK regularly, and I have close family members and friends living in the UK with whom I stay in regular contact. I care about what happens to the UK, and I keep myself well-informed about UK politics. If I continue to live abroad, I would like to remain an enfranchised voter. The EU referendum is a good example of an issue that affects many generations of UK citizens, as well as the many EU citizens who are resident in the UK. Everyone who is a UK citizen should have been able to vote in the referendum. I would therefore like to ask the committee to explore how the arbitrary 15-year rule can be set aside, and UK citizens living abroad enabled to retain their right to vote in parliamentary elections and referenda throughout their lives. Additionally: many EU citizens and citizens of other nations lawfully resident in the long-term in the UK were not permitted to participate in the EU referendum. I would like to ask the committee to explore how in any future seeking of public opinion through a referendum, all potentially affected people lawfully resident long-term in the UK (who plausibly count as members of the public) can have their opinions heard through referendum participation.

 

  1. Summary of recommendations:
    1. Revise the wording of the postal ballot instructions, to make them clearer and more accessible to all. Ensure that the instructions match all of the materials provided in postal ballot packets.
    2. Investigate whether or not other nations’ postal services do in fact recognize UK government franking. Clearly inform all UK voters of the outcome, and change the process of postal voting accordingly, to ensure that postal voters are not disenfranchised. If there is a possibility of voting electronically from overseas (including a confirmation system so that overseas voters can know whether or not their vote has been accepted for counting), I would like to see this implemented.
    3. Investigate the issue of postal ballot packages arriving with registered and eligible overseas voters late. Clearly inform all UK voters of the outcome, and change the process of postal voting accordingly, to ensure that postal voters are not disenfranchised.
    4. Change the 15-year rule to permanently enfranchise all UK citizens living overseas.
    5. In future, also include people lawfully resident long-term in the UK and likely to be significantly affected by any action based on a referendum result as eligible to advise government and Parliament of their opinion through referendum participation.

 

 

September 2016

 

2