Submission to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht

Public Consultation on an Electoral Commission in Ireland

National Youth Council of Ireland

June 2015

Introduction

The National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI) is the representative body for 48 voluntary youth organisations in Ireland (full list in appendix 1).Our member organisations work with and for up to 380,000 young people aged 10 to 24 years in every community in Ireland with the support of 40,000 volunteers and 1,400 paid staff. NYCI functions to represent the interests of young people and youth organisations. NYCI's role is recognised in legislation (Youth Work Act) and as a social partner. The NYCI aims through its member organisations and its representative role to empower young people to participate in society as fulfilled confident individuals. The work of NYCI is based on principles of equality, social justice and equal participation for all. In achieving these aims the NYCI seeks the emergence of a society in which young people are valued citizens who can make a meaningful contribution to their community.

Background

NYCI works to promote active citizenship among young people and to support their participation in our democracy. We have actively promoted the participation of young people aged 18 years or over in the electoral process for many years. We have consistently organised campaigns to encourage and support young people to register to vote and to vote in all elections and referenda. Our campaign work involved working with members at grassroots level and promoting the message through local and national print and broadcast media. We welcome the fact that voter turnout among young people aged 18-25 years has increased in recent years. The 2011 CSO report on voter participation[1]found that 62% of young people aged 18-25 years voted in the 2011 General Election compared to 50% in the 2002 General Election. We welcome the indications that voter registration and voter turnout among young people in the recent Marriage Equality referendum was high.

In 2014,NYCIsecured funding from the European Commission and the Communicating Europe Initiative, to run a campaign in two parts. The first part of the campaign was called “Pledge2Reg” and aimedto actively support young people to register in time for the 2014 European elections.The second part of the campaign involved partnering with USI and Spunout.ie to run a “Promote the Vote” campaign to secure a high youth turnout. This work entailed direct contact with young people on third level campuses to register young people to vote, to provide information about the elections via an email reminder to vote, and an elections hustings in each European Parliament constituency. In the most recent referenda held on May 22nd2015, we engaged in a campaign targeting both local print and broadcast media encouraging young people to register and to vote (for further details of our media campaign seeAppendix 2).Social media was also used to inform and encourage young people to register to vote and once that deadline had passed, to encourage young people to turn out and vote.

NYCI have also engaged in consultation and commissioned independent research to ascertain the views of young people with regard to the electoral system.In 1999,NYCI conducted and published research entitled Voting at the Crossroads[2] which outlined the views of young people on issues relevant to this consultation such as voter registration. In 2009, we polled young people on a range of issues including whether or not they were registered to vote and their opinions on measures to increase turnout. The findings of this research are detailed in The Truth About Youth Report[3]. In 2014, we commissioned Red C to conduct a poll of young people aged 18-25 years which included a number of questions on voter registration and views on online voter registration and online voting. The findings of the poll on detailed in our report entitled NYCI Briefing Paper 1-Voter Participation[4]

Response to Consultation Questions

NYCI supports the establishment of an Electoral Commission, however, we accept the view as put forward in the Consultation Paper and the Geary Report[5] that to retain the best of the current system and to maintain public trust and confidence it is best to proceed with care and consideration. While many aspects of the electoral system currently function well, this submission focuses primarily on one component of the system which in our view is not fit for purpose, namely the voter registration system. We also contend that an Electoral Commission has the potential to play a leading role in research on voter registration and voter mobilisation.

Functions

What existing functions in the conduct and management of elections and referendums would be transferred to such a Commission?

Undertake and Reform the Electoral Registration System

The consultation document set outs (p31) the potential list of functions which could be undertaken by an Electoral Commission. NYCI believes that an Irish Electoral Commission could assume many of these responsibilities over time either directly or acting as an oversight body. We are of the view that a key, urgent and primary role for the new body will be to undertake and reform the current voter registration system. The current system is not fit for purpose, as itis under resourced, inconsistent and inaccurate. It was designed at a time when the vast majority of the population were born, raised and lived in the one area and remained there all of their lives. It was not designed or administered to easily capture a population which is highly mobile, especially a young mobile population. Our analysis would suggest that the means by which the register is currently compiledand organised is leading to the exclusion of greater numbers of young people. This is demonstrated by the following data which shows that the number of unregistered young people has doubled in 15 years:

In 1999,14% of young people aged 18-25 years not registered to vote

In 2014, 30% of young people aged 18-25 years not registered to vote

We consistently receive communication from young people in advance of elections/referenda and after the deadline for the supplementary register who want to vote but who cannot. There is inconsistency across the country as to how local authorities carry out a review of the electoral register. We understand that some local authorities carry out door to door surveys; however, this is not a cost effective approach unless it is based on information and intelligence.As noted in the Geary Report,research from Canada suggests that about 17% of electoral information changes each year.

An Electoral Commission could channel resources to specific areas, for example to cities or towns with significant student populations. Also such a body could utilise information from and engage with other public bodies such as the Property Services Regulatory Authority which publishes a register of all property sales, and the Private Residential Tenancies Board which maintains a register of rental agreements. This data would allow the Electoral Commission to target those households who need to update their voter registration information. Analysis of publicly available information such as this and other information would assist in the compilation of a more accurate electoral register.

As referenced in a report by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service[6] evidence from the US suggests that eliminating voter registration barriers can raise voter participation rates by between 7 and 10%. The current annual cycle whereby the revised register is published each February is outdated and should be replaced with an ongoing and rolling system. At present the electoral register is closed annually which requires those seeking to be added having to go through the more cumbersome and time consuming supplementary registration process. The current supplementary register process also puts local authority staff under significant pressure to revise the register in time for an impending election/referendum.

The establishment of an Electoral Commission would also facilitate the development of a centralised system for online voter registration. While it is possible to check if you are registered online, many young people cannot understand why it is not possible to complete the registration system online. This would not only assist those seeking to register for the first time but also those voters who want to change their electoral address. An online process would also reduce the administrative burden on an Electoral Commission.

Research and Promotion of Registration and Voting

As in other jurisdictions we believe one of the key functions of an Electoral Commission is that it should have both the capacity and resources to undertake research and to directly and indirectly support voter engagement and participation campaigns. There is limited data and research on how best to promote and support citizen engagement in the electoral process. Furthermore, there is limited research on what actions and campaigns achieve the best outcomes in relation to boosting turnout. As outlined in the Geary report there are different reasons why some voters abstain. Some do not vote because of circumstances on the day, referred to as “circumstantial abstention.” If an Electoral Commission had more data and research on the reasons why some eligible voters did not cast a ballot it may be in a position to review and revise the polling period, polling places, and address other factors to enhance voter turnout.

The recent referenda indicated that campaigns which promote voter mobilisation can make a significant difference. We believe that an Electoral Commission should have a role in supporting voter mobilisation both directly and indirectly. Public bodies such as the Referendum Commission have engaged in information and advertising campaigns to promote participation. This could be undertaken by an Electoral Commission for all elections/referenda. Based on our work to date, NYCI argues that an Electoral Commission should be empowered to fund campaigns by non-governmental and non-partisan bodies who are solely concerned with promoting voter participation.

What functions would remain with existing actors and why?

There are many aspects of the electoral system such as the role of the Local Returning Officer who organises the polling places and the conduct of election counts which appear to function well. It may be best to apply a “if it is not broke, don’t fix it” approach to any proposed reassignment of functions. While an Electoral Commission may not directly carry out certain functions, it would make sense that it provides an oversight and support function which would ensure consistency and perhaps reduce the number of agencies and bodies with a role in the electoral process.

Cost

What is the sum of the costs incurred by all actors involved in electoral (including referendum) management?

We do not have access to the detailed information to make a comment on this question.

How would and should the establishment of the Commission affect these costs?

We note from the consultation document that the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government allocated €4,846,821 to local authorities to maintain and revise the electoral register in 2014. The Department have informed us that there were 3,317,927 voters on local election register (list with largest number of eligible voters) as of February 2015. On that basis local authorities receive €1.46 per each eligible voter to administer the electoral registration system. We are not sure how this compares to other jurisdictions but in our view the current electoral registration system is under resourced. While the establishment of a centralised national body may lead to some efficiencies and savings, we believe that the current budget needs to be increased to enhance the electoral register and improve the electoral registration system.

We acknowledge that there are limited sources of funding to meet any additional costs. We note that almost 40% of the cost of the 2011 General Election or €11,606,616 was spent on sending free election material (Litir um Toghchain) from candidates to all electors. Following a decision to send the material to each household rather than each voter the costs associated with the 2014 European elections was estimated at €8.65m[7]. We acknowledge that these are not annual costs and only arise in years when there is a General, Presidential or European Election. In 2011, the total cost of sending this material for the Dáil and Presidential elections came to €21.8m which seems excessive and unnecessary. In an era when voters receive copious information from all candidates and can also access information online and on social media this does not represent value for money. We propose that the savings made by ceasing to send this material on behalf of candidates should be invested in reforming and enhancing the voter registration system.

Independence and accountability / Membership

How would the Commission’s independence be promoted along with its accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas / Government for carrying out the functions assigned to it?

What mechanisms would be used to promote this accountability?

Who should be a Member and how should members of the Commission be appointed?

NYCI isnot convinced that a model which is used to establish bodies such as the Referendum Commission or Constituency Commission for a limited period and for set tasks is the best template for an Electoral Commission being established on a permanent basis. While post holders such as a High Court Judge, the Ombudsman, Clerk of the Dáil and Seanad are all inevitably eminent persons with considerable expertise, they are also post holders with an already considerable workload who may have limited time for a long term ongoing appointment. The task of establishing a new public body and taking on a large range of important electoral functions may require a different approach.

Appointment of a number of full-time Electoral Commissioners

One possibility would be the appointment of a number (usually) three full-time Electoral Commissioners who would oversee the work of the body on a full time basis as is the case with certain regulatory bodies such as CER/COMREG. The advantage of this approach is that it would be possible to recruit peoplewith different expertise who have the capacity to work full-time on developing the new public body, maintaining the integrity of the electoral process and enhancing the system.

To ensure independence, we recommend that these post-holders should be recruited by the Public Appointments Service and appointed by the President as is the case with the recruitment and appointment of the Ombudsman.

To ensure the accountability of the Electoral Commission to the Oireachtas and public we would propose the following;

Development of performance indicators

Annual report on activities and progress towards performance indicators

Annual presentation to and engagement with the relevant Oireachtas committee

Annual presentation to public meeting open to public and press

Establishment process

Should the establishment of the Commission be undertaken on a phased basis, as recommended by the report commissioned by the Department from the Geary Institute, or some other way?

Should it exist alongside SIPO (Standards in Public Office Commission) or within SIPO?

Given the importance of the functions such as the administration of the electoral register and conduct of elections which an Electoral Commission would have responsibilities for, it is clear that this would have to be implemented on a phased basis. It would be important that once a decision is made on which functions the body will be assigned, that a clear timetable would need to be agreed for implementation otherwise the body would be undermined. It may be instructive to examine the experience of other state bodies which in recent times have undertaken functions which previously were carried out by a range of other public bodies such as the Charities Regulatory Authority, the Property Services Regulatory Authority and or TUSLA. This may assist in the preparation of the transfer of functions and avoid difficulties.

We would support the proposal that functions currently being carried out by the Standards in Public Office Commission be assigned to the Electoral Commission in a planned manner. It makes sense to assign all duties relating to the electoral process to one body which avoids duplication and issues falling between the responsibilities of separate public bodies.

Appendix 1

NYCI MEMBERS LIST 2015

FULL MEMBERS (with voting rights)

An Óige
BelongTo
Boys Brigade
Catholic Guides of Ireland
Church of Ireland Youth Department
CoderDojo Foundation
Colaiste na bhFiann
Crosscare (Catholic Youth Care)
ECO – Unesco
EIL Intercultural Learning
Exchange House
Feachtas
Foroige
Gaisce
Girls’ Brigade Ireland
Girls’ Friendly Society
Involve Youth Service Ltd
Irish Association of Youth Orchestras
Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Youth Committee)
Irish Girl Guides
Irish Methodist Youth and Children’s Department
Irish Red Cross Youth
Irish Secondary Students Union
Junior Chamber Ireland
Killinarden Community Council Youth Project
Macra na Feirme
National Association for Youth Drama
No Name Clubs
Ógra Fianna Fail
Ógras
Order of Malta Cadets
Pavee Point Travellers Centre
Peace Corps Localise
Scouting Ireland
Spunout.ie
St Andrew’s Talk about Youth Project
Swan Regional Youth Service
Voluntary Service International
YMCA Ireland
Young Christian Workers
Young Fine Gael
Young Irish Film Makers
Young Social Innovators
Youth Work Ireland

AFFILIATE MEMBERS (no voting rights)

1. Amnesty International

2. Enable Ireland

3. Irish Family Planning Association

4. Irish Wheelchair Association

Appendix 2

Overview of media coverage

Media coverage of NYC’s young voter engagement campaign forthe Marriage Equality Referendum from 24.04.15 (date of our first press comment in relation to the topic) to 31.05.15:
Featured 114 times in national and regional print and broadcast media, resulting in coverage with an advertising value equivalent of €268,390.