Objectives
- To objectively observe the election process across Gibraltar.
- To advise the election officials in Gibraltar on the results of the observation for the improvement of the electoral practice.
- To support these election bodies with constructive feedback on areas of concern so that they may consider remedial action.
Overview
The observation team were impressed by the conduct of staff throughout polling day, and staff were appropriately welcoming of voters and our team of election observers.
Staff conducted the election diligently and without any significant problems identified by our observer team.
Having now observed several electoral events in Gibraltar, on this occasion the team focused on accessibility as a challenge for some voters, having previously assessed issues such as the role of the media. As such, Democracy Volunteers engaged with disability charities and campaigners in Gibraltar to see if it was possible to identify ways that the process could be improved for these groups.
Our meetings with the Gibraltar Disability Society’s representatives raised several issues which we feel that the returning officer may want to consider for future elections, such as the design of the ballot paper and how parties are identifiable on the paper for those with certain disabilities. We discuss these further in the recommendations later in this paper.
The returning officer introduced a new method of electronic counting for the counting process, which was an innovation from previous elections. This raised concerns from several interlocutors, but which, when tested at the count, worked well.
One concern, which we have not previously identified as being a challenge in elections in Gibraltar was the apparent over-familiarity of some party campaigners and elections staff. Whilst staff were always professional in their interactions with party representatives, we did observe some party officials apparently not seeing the clear distinction between the two roles, in one case we even observed a party representative handling an opened postal vote, presumably to gain a clearer view of it, as the opening of postal votes was ongoing. This is clearly an infringement that should be, and was, ameliorated immediately, but was arguably an indication that some party campaigners did not see this clear distinction in the two roles, one which we would argue should be reflected on for future elections.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As at previous polls, the election in Gibraltar was extremely well run. The returning officer and his staff have a great deal of trust and respect from the contestants, public and externally. This being the first election under a new Returning Officer, some were concerned about the implementation of an entirely new counting procedure, which appeared to work very well for those using it and those who were contesting the election.
As at previous elections or referendums in Gibraltar, we attempted to assess a new aspect of the voting procedure to try to give helpful feedback to those who legislate for and those who administer elections. Having previously recommended the use of the Tactile Voting Device to assist blind and/or partially sighted voters, we revisited the accessibility of the voting process and held meetings with those interested parties, namely the campaign group, the Gibraltar Disability Society, to see if there were ways that the voting process could be improved even further in the future.
This meeting focused extensively on the accessibility of the ballot paper. This is something that parties are already aware of, as they produce and distribute flyers specifically for the voters to identify their candidates on the ballot to ensure that a voter votes for their entire slate of candidates when in the polling booth.
Thus, there is already some awareness that the ballot paper may benefit from an improvement in design to make it more accessible to more voters to prevent the need for external assistance, which can sometimes take the form of family voting.
Design of the Ballot Paper
Following discussions with the Gibraltar Disability Society, we would recommend:
R1: The ballot paper should have the photograph of each candidate alongside their name making them more identifiable to the voter.
R2: As the electorate is quite small, and printing costs may not be significantly different, we would encourage those responsible for funding the election, to assess the cost benefit of producing the ballot paper in colour, which might also assist with the use of party logos on ballot papers potentially making it clearer for voters.
R3: Some interlocutors suggested that wider awareness of the voting system and process of voting should be encouraged from a younger age with the possibility of school-based information sessions on what the process involves so that younger voters have greater confidence in their ability to vote independently. This might also lead to a reduction in family voting.
The Counting Process
Several interlocutors raised concerns about the introduction of a new counting process shortly before a parliamentary general election:
R4: Greater time should be given to informing participants of any new innovations in significant aspects of the electoral process.
Combatting Family Voting
Following our recommendations, the UK Parliament recently passed supplementary legislation on so-called family voting, where one person attempts to affect, or direct, another person in the way they vote. This culminated in the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023, which updated the 1872 Ballot Act.
We would recommend a similar clarification in Gibraltarian law to ensure that voters are aware of their right, and requirement, to vote independently.
R5: We would recommend that the Gibraltar Parliament considers supplementary legislation to make it clear that interfering with another person’s right to vote independently is an electoral offence.
Party Activity
We were concerned that some party representatives did not understand the clear delineation between their role, as campaigning to elect their candidate, and that of election staff who are required to deliver the election in a non-partisan and unbiased fashion. We have no criticism of the electoral staff but would recommend that party staff and campaigners are encouraged to form a code of conduct when engaging with elections staff.
Our observers were especially concerned that some party representatives did not understand that they should not handle, or even touch, ballot papers, this was particularly noted at the opening of the postal votes.
R6: Party campaigners should adhere to a clear code of conduct, delineating their role from that of the elections staff, this should especially be the case in the formal parts of the election process where ballot papers are being handled and verification and counting processes are taking place.
