| Morgan v Simpson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) | [1975] QB 151; [1974] 3 WLR 517; [1974] 3 All ER 722; 72 LGR 715; (1974) 118 SJ 736 |
| Keywords | |
| Voting, elections, integrity, democracy | |
Morgan v Simpson [1975] QB 151 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the right to vote and the integrity of votes and elections in the United Kingdom.
Gladys Morgan and four voters in the 1973 election for the Greater London Council petitioned that the election for the seat of Croydon North East was invalid as 44 unstamped ballot papers were not counted. At 18 polling stations, official counters had inadvertently not stamped papers with the official marks. The Labour candidate declared ‘duly elected’, David Simpson, had a majority of only 11, and if the uncounted papers were included, Morgan (the Conservative candidate, and an incumbent) would have won instead by 7 votes. They claimed there was an ‘act or omission’ in breach of an officer’s official duty, and that it affected the result under section 37 of the Representation of the People Act 1949.
The Divisional Court held the election was conducted ‘substantially in accordance with the law as to elections’ and the fact that small errors affected the result was not enough. Morgan appealed. Anthony Scrivener appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Court of Appeal declared the election invalid, because the result would have been affected. On the proper construction of the Representation of the People Act 1949 section 37(1), any breach of local election rules was enough to compel the court to declare the election void.
Lord Denning MR said the following:
... I should think that the 44 mistakes were due largely to the fault of the officers in the polling stations and very little to the fault of the voters. If their votes are not to count, they are disfranchised without any real blame attaching to them.
Such being the facts, I turn to the law. It depends on section 37 of the Representation of the People Act 1949. It says:
"(1) No local government election shall be declared invalid by reason of any act or omission of the returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in connection with the election or otherwise of the local elections rules if it appears to the tribunal having cognizance of the question that the election was so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections and that the act or omission did not affect its result."That section is expressed in the negative. It says when an election is not to be declared invalid. The question of law in this case is whether it should be transformed into the positive so as to show when an election is to be declared invalid. So that it would run:
"A local government election shall be declared invalid (by reason of any act or omission of the returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in connection with the election or otherwise of the local election rules) if it appears to the tribunal having cognisance of the question that the election was not so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections or that the act or omission did affect the result."I think that the section should be transformed so as to read positively in the way I have stated. I have come to this conclusion from the history of the law as to elections and the cases under the statutes to which I now turn, underlining the important points.
The common law method of election was by show of hands. But if a poll was demanded, the election was by poll: see Anthony v Seger (1789) 1 Hag.Con. 9, 13. A poll was taken in this way: the returning officer or his clerk had a book in which he kept a record of the votes cast. Each voter went up to the clerk, gave his name, and stated his qualification. The clerk wrote down his name. The voter stated the candidate for whom he voted. The poll clerk recorded his vote. (Sometimes the voter went up with a card on which the particulars were written: and these were written down by the poll clerk.) After the poll was concluded, the votes were counted and the result announced. But the poll book was open to inspection. Then, if required, there was a scrutiny at which a vote could be challenged, for example, by showing that a voter was not qualified to vote. In that event his vote was not counted. So the result was decided according to the number of votes cast which were valid votes. Sometimes the returning officer or his clerk might refuse to record some of the votes without good cause. If it were found that the rejected votes would have given a different result, the election would be vitiated: see Faulkner v Elger (1825) 4 B. & C. 449. If they would not have affected the result, the election was good, but the rejected voter could have an action for damages against the returning officer: see Ashby v White (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938.
Such was the method of election at common law. It was open. Not by secret ballot. Being open, it was disgraced by abuses of every kind, especially at parliamentary elections. Bribery, corruption, treating, personation, were rampant. These were not investigated by the courts of law. They were the subject of petition to Parliament itself. Often members were unseated and elections declared invalid. If you should wish to know what happened, you will find it in Power, Rodwell & Dew Reports of Controverted Elections (1848-1853) and in Charles Dickens' account of the election at Eatanswill.
In 1868 the judges were brought in for the first time. By the Parliamentary Elections Act 1868, a petition to unseat a member was to be tried by a judge of one of the superior courts. He was to make a report to the Speaker: and his report had the same effect as that of an Election Committee previously. After that Act, the judges tried many election petitions. Nearly all of them were for bribery, corruption and treating. Most of them will be found in O'Malley & Hardcastle's Reports (1869-1874). There is one relevant to our present case. It arose out of an election at Taunton in 1868. It shows that, when a petition alleged that the unsuccessful candidate had the majority of legal votes, the manner of ascertaining the truth was by a scrutiny of the votes. If, on the scrutiny, it was found that he had obtained the majority of legal votes, the sitting member was unseated and the defeated candidate was returned: see Leigh & Le Marchant's Election Law, 2nd ed. (1874), p. 75, where this proposition is better stated than in the report of In re Taunton Election Petition ; Waygood v James (1869) L.R. 4 C.P. 361.
Then in 1872 Parliament passed the Ballot Act 1872 [Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act]. It revolutionised the system of voting at elections. It provided for voting by secret ballot. It prescribed rules and set out forms of ballot papers. It contained a provision as to noncompliance with the rules. It is the forerunner of the section which we have to consider today. Section 13 of the Act of 1872 said:
"No election shall be declared invalid by reason of a non-compliance with the rules contained in Schedule 1 to this Act, or any mistake in the use of the forms in Schedule 2 to this Act, if it appears to the tribunal having cognizance of the question that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of this Act, and that such non-compliance or mistake did not affect the result of the election."Soon after that Act was passed, Leigh and Le Marchant published a valuable commentary on it. They transformed the negative into the positive in the way I have suggested [ Leigh & Le Marchant's Election Law], at p. 97:
"A non-compliance with the provisions of the Ballot Act 1872, and Schedules 1 and 2 , or a mistake at the poll, will vitiate the election, if it should appear that the result of the election was affected thereby, but not otherwise, provided the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of the Act."A little later, the Act was considered by Grove J. in 1874 in In re Hackney Election Petition : Gill v Reed (1874) 2 O'M. & H. 77. In that case there were 19 polling stations, but two were closed all day, and three others were only open for part of the day. The result was that 5,000 persons (out of 41,000) were unable to vote. Grove J. held at p. 84 that the election was not "conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of the Act" and was therefore void. He said that the object of the provision was, at p. 85:
"an election is not to be upset for an informality or for a triviality, it is not to be upset because the clerk of one of the polling stations was five minutes too late, or because some of the polling papers were not delivered in a proper manner, or were not marked in a proper way. The objection must be something substantial,..."The Act was soon afterwards considered in 1875 by the Court of Common Pleas in Woodward v Sarsons (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 733. A polling officer made this mistake. He wrote, on each of the ballot papers, the voter's number as it appeared on the electoral roll. That rendered the ballot papers void. There were 294 of them, 234 for Woodward and 60 for Sarsons. The returning officer, quite properly, rejected them. On his count, Sarsons got 965 and Woodward 775. Woodward asked the court to declare that, for breach of the rules, the election should be declared invalid. The Court of Common Pleas had a scrutiny and went into all the alleged breaches. (There were some others besides the 294.) They found that the errors did not affect the result. Even if the polling officer had made no mistakes, the result would have been Sarsons 1,025 and Woodward 1,008. So Sarsons would have won anyway. The court said, at p. 750:
"the errors of the presiding officers at the polling stations... did not affect the result of the election, and did not prevent the majority of electors from effectively exercising their votes in favour of the candidate they preferred, and therefore that the election cannot be declared void...."But if the errors had affected the result (in other words, if Woodward would have won but for the mistakes of the polling officers), the court, as I read the judgment, would have declared the election void. Whilst I agree with the passage which I have quoted, there are other passages with which I do not agree. Some of them are erroneous, as Stephenson L.J. will point out. Others are not sense, as Lawton L.J. will observe. In future, the case should be regarded as authority only for what it decided, and not for what was said in it.
Next comes In re Islington West Division ; Medhurst v Lough (1901) 17 TLR 210. A presiding officer, in breach of the rules, gave out 14 ballot papers after 8 p.m., which was closing time. They were invalid and ought not to have been counted. But they were counted. Lough was declared elected by 19 votes. Medhurst, the other candidate, sought to have the election declared void. The court went into the details. They said that even if all the votes on the 14 papers given out after 8 p.m. were given for Mr. Lough, there was a majority of five for him. The irregularity did not affect the result of the election. So it was not avoided.
In 1949 came the Representation of the People Act 1949. Section 37 is in substantially the same terms as section 13 of the Act of 1872. Under it there is a good illustration in Gunn v Sharpe [1974] Q.B. 808, decided earlier this year. At 10 polling stations ballot papers were issued for the election of three councillors. The polling clerks made mistakes in that they issued 102 ballot papers without stamping them with the official mark. These were rejected and not counted. The court looked to see whether the mistakes in those 102 did affect the result....
Accordingly, if the unmarked papers had been counted, nos. 2 and 3 would have been unsuccessful. The court declared the election of those two to be void. They put it on the ground that the election was not so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections. But I think it should have been put on the ground that the mistakes did affect the result of the election.
Collating all these cases together, I suggest that the law can be stated in these propositions:
1. If the election was conducted so badly that it was not substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, the election is vitiated, irrespective of whether the result was affected or not. That is shown by the Hackney case, 2 O'M. & H. 77, where two out of 19 polling stations were closed all day, and 5,000 voters were unable to vote.
2 If the election was so conducted that it was substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, it is not vitiated by a breach of the rules or a mistake at the polls - provided that it did not affect the result of the election. That is shown by the Islington case, 17 T.L.R. 210 , where 14 ballot papers were issued after 8 p.m.
3. But, even though the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, nevertheless if there was a breach of the rules or a mistake at the polls - and it did affect the result - then the election is vitiated. That is shown by Gunn v Sharpe [1974] Q.B. 808, where the mistake in not stamping 102 ballot papers did affect the result.
Applying these propositions, it is clear that in this case, although the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law, nevertheless the mistake in not stamping 44 papers did affect the result. So the election is vitiated. The election of Mr. Simpson must be declared invalid.
I would allow the appeal, accordingly.
Stephenson LJ concurred and said the following in conclusion:
I now answer my four main questions as follows:
1 and 2. Any breach of the local elections rules which affects the result of an election is by itself enough to compel the tribunal to declare the election void. It is not also necessary that the election should be conducted not substantially in accordance with the law as to local elections. As such a significant breach of the rules is admitted, the appeal must be allowed on that ground.
3 and 4. For an election to be conducted substantially in accordance with that law there must be a real election by ballot and no such substantial departure from the procedure laid down by Parliament as to make the ordinary man condemn the election as a sham or a travesty of an election by ballot. Instances of such a substantial departure would be allowing voters to vote for a person who was not in fact a candidate or refusing to accept a qualified candidate on some illegal ground or disfranchising a substantial proportion of qualified voters, but not such an irregularity as was committed in this case or perhaps in Gunn v. Sharpe .
These last answers are not necessary to the decision of this appeal if I am right in my construction of the section, but as I may be wrong in disagreeing as I have with the Divisional Court's interpretation, I have thought it right to state my agreement with their decision that this election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to elections and to give my reasons for agreeing as well as for disagreeing with the judgment under appeal. But what is substantial is a question of degree and I find it easier to give instances of what is and is not substantial than to define precisely in other words what the language of the section means.
I would add that if the result of our decision and questions of public interest are to be considered, the reasons for granting this petition seem to me to outweigh such reasons as the Divisional Court gave for rejecting it. In my judgment Mr. Simpson was not duly elected and I would allow this appeal and declare the election void.
Lawton LJ gave a concurring opinion, and said the following:
Before the Parliamentary Elections Act 1868, the House of Commons itself had dealt with election petitions. It had acted on the report of one of its committees and sometimes judges were called in to advise. The principles upon which Parliament proceeded were considered by the Court of Common Pleas in Woodward v Sarsons (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 733. The judgment was delivered by Lord Coleridge C.J. The broad issue was whether under the Ballot Act 1872 municipal elections were to be declared invalid on the same or different principles from those followed for parliamentary elections at common law, there being no evidence at all that such irregularities as had been proved would have affected the result. The court adjudged that the common law principles and those to be applied under section 13 of the Ballot Act 1872 were the same. Lord Coleridge CJ stated the common law rule for parliamentary elections as follows, at p. 743:
"... the true statement is that an election is to be declared void by the common law applicable to parliamentary elections, if it was so conducted that the tribunal which is asked to avoid it is satisfied, as matter of fact, either that there was no real electing at all, or that the election was not really conducted under the subsisting election laws."It is important to bear in mind that the Court of Common Pleas did not consider what was the practice of Parliament in cases where, although the election had been conducted substantially in accordance with the subsisting election laws, the proven irregularities had affected the result. Counsel, whose researches had been thorough, were unable to cite any case before 1872 in which such an issue had been considered.
It seems to me likely that Parliament in 1872 intended to apply to the new system of voting the same principles for declaring elections invalid as the House of Commons had applied before 1868. This was certainly so for elections in which the irregularities did not affect the result. If the scheme of the Act of 1872 was to envisage that irregularities would render an election invalid unless specific circumstances existed (as I adjudge it to have been) the word "and" presents no difficulty and can be construed gammatically both in the Act of 1872 and in section 37 (1) of the Act of 1949 since both sets of circumstances have to exist to avoid the consequences of irregularity. In this case there was only one. A declaration of invalidity must follow.
The Divisional Court decided otherwise, finding their answer to the problem presented by this case in a passage in the judgment of Lord Coleridge C.J. in Woodward v. Sarsons at p. 751. That judge referred to the construction of the Act of 1872 which I favour, and went on as follows:
"If this proposition be closely examined, it will be found to be equivalent to this, that the non-observance of the rules or forms which is to render the election invalid, must be so great as to amount to a conducting of the election in a manner contrary to the principle of an election by ballot, and must be so great as to satisfy the tribunal that it did affect or might have affected the majority of the voters, or, in other words, the result of the election. It therefore is, as has been said, an enactment ex abundanti cautela, declaring that to be the law applicable to elections under the Ballot Act which would have been the law to be applied if this section had not existed. It follows that, for the same reasons which prevent us from holding that this election was void at common law, we must hold that it is not void under the statute."This passage does not make sense to me no matter how closely I examine it. I accept that at common law the irregularities had to be substantial to render an election invalid if, as in Woodward v. Sarsons , the irregularities did not affect the result. As I would have expected from a principle evolved from the practice of the House of Commons, this accords with common sense. But when irregularities affect the result, as in this case, I cannot see why a principle applicable to wholly different circumstances should operate to produce a result which many reasonable people would regard as unjust.
The Divisional Court found support for their decision in what they thought would be the undesirable consequences of construing section 37 (1) of the Act of 1949 in the way I find it should be construed. I am not satisfied, as the Divisional Court seems to have been, that this construction would be likely to result in many more election petitions where majorities have been small. In cases where majorities are small, say under 100, the unsuccessful candidates may seek to have the election declared invalid. In these days of voting rights for all persons aged 18 and over such small majorities are rare anyway, and even more rare would be the cases in which the unmarked ballot papers would have affected the result; but even if they are not, the unattractive possibility of more election petitions cannot be a sound reason for giving section 37 (1) a meaning other than that which the words themselves bear....
The 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida was a period of vote recounting in Florida that occurred during the weeks after Election Day in the 2000 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The Florida vote was ultimately settled in Bush's favor by a margin of 537 votes when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been initiated upon a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court. Bush's win in Florida gave him a majority of votes in the Electoral College and victory in the presidential election.
Electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election manipulation, voter fraud or vote rigging, involves illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of a favored candidate, depressing the vote share of rival candidates, or both. It differs from but often goes hand-in-hand with voter suppression. What exactly constitutes electoral fraud varies from country to country.
The secret ballot, also known as the Australian ballot, is a voting method in which a voter's identity in an election or a referendum is anonymous. This forestalls attempts to influence the voter by intimidation, blackmailing, and potential vote buying. This system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy.
The 1875 Quebec general election was held on July 7, 1875, to elect members of the 3rd Legislative Assembly for the Province of Quebec, Canada. The Quebec Conservative Party, led by Charles-Eugène Boucher de Boucherville, defeated the Quebec Liberal Party, led by Henri-Gustave Joly de Lotbinière.
Elections in Spain encompass four different types: general elections, regional elections, local elections, and elections to the European Parliament. General elections and regional elections are typically conducted at the conclusion of the national or regional legislative mandate, which usually spans four years since the previous election. However, early elections can be called in certain circumstances. On the other hand, local council elections and elections to the European Parliament follow fixed dates, although some local government bodies, such as provincial councils, are not directly elected. In most elections, a party-list proportional representation (PR) system is employed, while the Senate utilizes the plurality system.
An absentee ballot is a vote cast by someone who is unable or unwilling to attend the official polling station to which the voter is normally allocated. Methods include voting at a different location, postal voting, proxy voting and online voting. Increasing the ease of access to absentee ballots is seen by many as one way to improve voter turnout through convenience voting, though some countries require that a valid reason, such as infirmity or travel, be given before a voter can participate in an absentee ballot. Early voting overlaps with absentee voting. Early voting includes votes cast before the official election day(s), by mail, online or in-person at voting centers which are open for the purpose. Some places call early in-person voting a form of "absentee" voting, since voters are absent from the polling place on election day.
India has a parliamentary system as defined by its constitution, with power distributed between the central government and the states. India is the largest democracy in the world.
Since its establishment in 1947, Pakistan has had an asymmetric federal government and is a federal parliamentary democratic republic. At the national level, the people of Pakistan elect a bicameral legislature, the Parliament of Pakistan. The parliament consists of a lower house called the National Assembly, which is elected directly, and an upper house called the Senate, whose members are chosen by elected provincial legislators. The head of government, the Prime Minister, is elected by the majority members of the National Assembly and the head of state, the President, is elected by the Electoral College, which consists of both houses of Parliament together with the four provincial assemblies. In addition to the national parliament and the provincial assemblies, Pakistan also has more than five thousand elected local governments.
General elections in Singapore must be held within three months after five years have elapsed from the date of the first sitting of a particular Parliament of Singapore, as per the Constitution. However, Parliament can also be dissolved and a general election called at the behest of the Prime Minister before the five-year period elapses. The number of constituencies or electoral divisions is not permanently fixed by law, but is declared by the Prime Minister prior to each general election pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, which governs the conduct of elections to Parliament, taking into account recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee.
In voting, a ballot is considered spoilt, spoiled, void, null, informal, invalid or stray if a law declares or an election authority determines that it is invalid and thus not included in the vote count. This may occur accidentally or deliberately. The total number of spoilt votes in a United States election has been called the residual vote. In Australia, such votes are generally referred to as informal votes, and in Canada they are referred to as rejected votes.
Rule 49-O was a rule in The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 of India, which governs elections in the country. It described the procedure to be followed when a valid voter decides not to cast his vote, and decides to record this fact. The rule was declared by the Supreme Court in September 2013 to be incompatible with the constitution and the Election Commission of India announced that the option under this rule would not be available any more. The apparent purpose of this section was to maintain a proper record in order to prevent the election fraud or the misuse of votes.
A Langer vote was a style of voting in the Australian electoral system designed to avoid the requirement to express preferences for all candidates without the vote being rejected as informal. The title is a tribute to Albert Langer, an Australian political activist, who advocated for the use of this style as a de facto method of optional preferential voting for making a valid vote for the voter's preferred candidates while the deliberate "error" avoided the vote being counted for one of the major political parties.
The Court of Disputed Returns in Australia is a special jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. The High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, hears challenges regarding the validity of federal elections. The jurisdiction is twofold: (1) on a petition to the Court by an individual with a relevant interest or by the Australian Electoral Commission, or (2) on a reference by either house of the Commonwealth Parliament. This jurisdiction was initially established by Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and is now contained in Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Challenges regarding the validity of State elections are heard by the Supreme Court of that State as the State's Court of Disputed Returns.
Constitutional Assembly elections were held in Iceland on 27 November 2010. The Supreme Court invalidated the results of the election on 25 January 2011 following complaints about several faults in how the election was conducted. However, it was decided on 25 February 2011 that the elected assembly members would instead be appointed to a Constitutional Council with effectively the same role. The proposed changes to the constitution were approved in a referendum in October 2012.
The 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election was held in Illinois on November 2, 1982. Incumbent Republican governor James R. Thompson won a third term in office, defeating the Democratic nominee, former United States Senator Adlai Stevenson III, by a slim margin of about 5,000 votes.
An Icelandic Constitutional Council (Stjórnlagaráð) for the purpose of reviewing the Constitution of the Republic was appointed by a resolution of Althingi, the Icelandic parliament, on 24 March 2011. Elections were held to create a Constitutional Assembly (Stjórnlagaþing) body, but given some electoral flaws, had been ruled null and void by the Supreme Court of Iceland on 25 January 2011, leading the parliament to place most of the winning candidates into a Constitutional Council with similar mission. The question of whether the text of the proposed constitution should form a base for a future constitution was put to a non-binding referendum, where it won the approval of 67% of voters. However, the government's term finished before the reform bill could be passed, and following governments have not acted upon it.
Chanter v Blackwood and the related case of Maloney v McEacharn were a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns arising from the 1903 federal election for the seats of Riverina and Melbourne in the House of Representatives. Chanter v Blackwood , and Maloney v McEacharn , determined questions of law as to the validity of certain votes. In Chanter v Blackwood Griffith CJ held that 91 votes were invalid and because this exceeded the majority, the election was void, while Chanter v Blackwood dealt with questions of costs. In Maloney v McEacharn more than 300 votes were found to be invalid and the parties agreed it was appropriate for the election to be declared void.
Presidential elections were held in Kenya on 26 October 2017 following the Supreme Court's annulment of the results of the presidential vote in the August 2017 general elections. The election was won by incumbent president Uhuru Kenyatta of the Jubilee Party, who won 98.3% of the popular vote to defeat Raila Odinga of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM).
The 2021 Berlin state election was held on 26 September 2021 to elect the 19th Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin. The incumbent government was a coalition of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), The Left, and The Greens led by Governing Mayor Michael Müller. Müller did not run for re-election as Mayor, and former federal minister Franziska Giffey led the SPD in the election. The Berlin expropriation referendum was held on the same day, as well as the Borough council elections who function as the municipal elections of Berlin.
The 2023 Berlin repeat state election was held on 12 February 2023 to once again elect the 19th Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin. The 19th Abgeordnetenhaus was originally elected in the 2021 Berlin state election held on 26 September. On 16 November 2022, the Constitutional Court of the State of Berlin declared the results invalid due to numerous irregularities and ordered a repeat election within 90 days. A decision by the Federal Constitutional Court regarding five constitutional complaints is still pending but would not be decided until after the repeat election. The incumbent government was a coalition of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), The Greens, and The Left led by Governing Mayor Franziska Giffey. Alongside the Abgeordnetenhaus election, the boroughs of Berlin council results were also ruled invalid and repeat elections ordered for the same date.