On February 12, 2023, the day a full repeat election for city and district council members was held following a ruling by the Berlin Constitutional Court, voters cast their ballots at a polling station in Berlin. [Reuters=Yonhap News]

On February 12, 2023, citizens of Berlin, Germany, participated in a repeat election. Although 110% of the required ballots had been prepared, there were administrative failures such as the distribution of incorrect ballots, suspension of voting, and long wait times. 

Both the Berlin Constitutional Court and the Federal Constitutional Court decisively ordered a repeat election. The standard for this decision was the legitimacy of the democratic process. The reasoning was that any election where the process has collapsed must be re-run, regardless of the outcome.

The June 3 Election Irregularities: Far More Severe Than Berlin

The June 3, 2026, local elections in the Republic of Korea involved illegalities far more serious than those in Berlin. From the very beginning, 50% of the required ballots were missing. The National Election Commission (NEC) made an absurd and arrogant decision to effectively strip the sovereignty of 51% of the citizenry.

Sovereign voters were forced to turn away from polling stations or wait indefinitely for long hours. The simultaneous resignation of the irresponsible NEC Chairman and the Secretary-General serves as a confession of the illegal and unconstitutional nature of the event.

Despite this uncontrollable situation, not only the NEC but also the government, the ruling party, and the judiciary remain trapped in the incompetent mindset that "a repeat election is legally impossible." 

They rely lazily on Supreme Court precedents that, based on Article 224 of the Public Official Election Act—which states that elections can be invalidated "only when it is recognized that the irregularity affected the election result"—demand that voters "specifically prove" the number of ballots contaminated by election fraud to justify a repeat election. 

It is the height of archaic theory to demand that voters identify enough fraudulent ballots to change the outcome, when it was the NEC that infringed upon sovereignty and voting rights in the first place—all while the NEC hides behind its status as a constitutional body to conceal evidence of election mismanagement.

The Path to a Repeat Election Through German Legal Precedent

In the Berlin election contamination case, Germany provided a different answer. Germany also has an election law clause that stipulates elections are void "only when it is recognized that the irregularity affected the election result." However, the interpretation was drastically different. 

First, in Germany, the illegality of the preparatory actions itself was seen as an independent ground for a repeat election. Therefore, a decision like the one in Korea to provide ballots for only 50% of voters is, in itself, an illegality that affects the election result. The actual number of ballots missing or voters denied their right to vote at polling stations serves only as supplementary evidence.

Second, Germany did not require the actual proof of "specific election fraud that would change the result"—a standard that is virtually impossible for a voter to meet. If there is illegal conduct within the election administration itself, the court assesses whether it had an impact on the result based on "normative possibility." The basis for the decision was not specific, individual evidence, but the reasonableness of the inference.

Third, direct voting is a fundamental right. Voters have the right to vote in person at a polling station on election day. Whether or not they actually appear at the polls is a matter of their own freedom. 

Statistical predictions that many voters will use early voting, or data suggesting low turnout in local elections, cannot serve as a justification for denying a sovereign voter the right to vote in person on election day. This is because the right to vote is based on the supremacy of sovereignty, not on statistics.

The Constitutional Significance of the 50% Printing Decision

Korea prides itself on being a developed, democratic nation on par with Germany, Japan, and France. For the election administration of such a country to decide on a 50% ballot shortage is a direct violation of the constitutional principle of in-person voting, and therefore, it is naturally grounds for a repeat election. 

Past statistics on turnout and early voting cannot be used as excuses. The very decision that mandates the 51st voter and beyond be treated as second-class citizens is, by its very "normative possibility," something that "affects the election result."

Counterarguments regarding the cost of a repeat election or the need to protect the trust of already-elected candidates hold no ground. The legitimacy of an election does not lie in a numbers game to determine a winner. The legitimacy of an election is based on a process that guarantees the fair participation of all sovereign citizens. The logic that we should turn a blind eye to the infringement of sovereignty for the sake of a candidate who derived their position from that same sovereignty is a logic that builds a nation without sovereignty. A repeat election is not chaos; it is restoration.

The NEC Must Declare a Repeat Election! The Courts Must Immediately Rule for Election Invalidation!

A repeat of the June 3 local election is the new starting point for South Korean democracy. A declaration of a repeat election can be made by the NEC, or by the court. The sovereign people expect both institutions to take responsibility before the public. 

The cries of the sovereign people echoing in Olympic Park for over a month are precisely that stern demand. The unified voice of the sovereign people, striking at the Constitution, the law, and democratic conscience, is a sharp and solemn blade based on the constitutional tenet that "all state authority belongs to the people."

◆ Dr. Hwang Do-soo

Doctor of Law, Attorney at Law, Former Constitutional Researcher at the Constitutional Court