A recount related to the Tongyeong mayoral election appeal is underway at the Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission on the afternoon of the 27th. On the left is the appellant, former Tongyeong Mayor Cheon Young-gi. [Photo=Yonhap News] Additional verification regarding the Tongyeong mayoral election appeal will be held on August 3. The main point of contention has become whether to compare the physical ballots from the Misu-dong early voting precinct—where irregularities in appearance were raised during the recount—with the ballot images stored in the tabulators at the time of the initial vote count.

Although the schedule for additional verification has been set, it has been confirmed that it has not yet been decided whether the comparison of physical ballots with digital images, as requested by the appellant, will be adopted as an actual item for verification.

Attorney Do Tae-woo, legal counsel for the appellant, stated in a phone call with the Hanmi Ilbo on the 29th that they had submitted a verification request to compare the physical ballots with their corresponding images after noticing a series of ballots with almost no margins in the Misu-dong early voting precinct.

Attorney Do stated, “We are not asking for all ballot images,” adding, “We want to compare the physical ballots with the image files specifically for the Misu-dong early voting precinct, where ballots with no margins were found.”

According to the appellant’s explanation, the request does not target all ballot images from the Tongyeong mayoral election. The intention is to narrow the scope to the Misu-dong early voting ballots where issues were raised at the recount site to verify whether the currently stored physical ballots match the images saved during the initial count.

Image comparison could be used to verify the consistency of the ballots by checking the physical ballots currently in storage against the images saved at the time of the count. However, the fact that an image and a physical ballot match does not necessarily prove that the ballot in question was legitimately issued and cast.

Former Tongyeong Mayor Cheon Young-gi films the recount of the Tongyeong mayoral election appeal with his smartphone. On the right is Mr. Jeon Han-gil. [Photo=Yonhap News] 

Election Commission: “A Demand for Files” vs. Attorney Do: “Application for Evidence Verification”

The Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission and the appellant’s side are offering different accounts regarding the nature of the image request.

Lee So-young, acting director of the Guidance Division at the Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission, explained in a call with the Hanmi Ilbo that the appellant’s request was essentially for document disclosure, stating, “The ballot tabulator image files are not a request for evidence verification; they are asking us to provide them beforehand.”

The acting director indicated that the agency holding the image files is the Tongyeong City Election Commission, and noted that such files are generally exempt from disclosure under standard information disclosure requests, citing the Seoul High Court ruling (2017Nu46020) as the basis for non-disclosure.

However, Attorney Do countered that they are not asking for the image files to be released externally, but have applied to have specific ballot images compared with physical ballots as part of the evidentiary investigation process for the election appeal.

The crux of the current dispute is whether the appellant’s submission was an information disclosure request to obtain the image files themselves, or a request for evidence verification to confirm the identity of specific ballots under the supervision of the Election Commission.

The Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission also distinguishes between the external release of image files and evidence verification during the appeal process.

The acting director stated, “If evidentiary investigation is necessary, it can be conducted if deemed required, but these are not materials that can be provided to the complainant.”

Regarding the possibility of additional investigations, she explained that “if it is necessary, verification must be done, and if more evidence investigation is needed, it should be done,” noting that the final decision rests with the Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission committee.

The Public Official Election Act applies the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Act regarding document disclosure requests, evidence verification, and ex officio examination to election appeals. While the comparison of physical ballots and images is not legally excluded as a method of evidence verification, the decision to adopt it is made by the adjudicating body based on its necessity.

Therefore, the issue the Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission must decide is not whether the image files can be disclosed to the public, but whether there is a necessity to compare the Misu-dong early voting ballots in question with their images.

Requests for Additional Verification of Numerical Discrepancies and Rosters Found During Recount

Along with image comparison, the appellant has requested additional verification regarding numerical discrepancies and voter rosters that they claim were confirmed during the recount process.

Attorney Do stated that they have requested an explanation regarding the discrepancy in figures between 6:09 PM and 6:19 PM in the vote-counting data.

He further argued that there is a discrepancy of 18 votes on the vote-counting report, but only 17 ballots were identified as misclassified or belonging to another candidate, leaving one vote unexplained.

However, further verification using original data is needed to determine which reporting stage or data set these figures are based on, and whether this represents a simple recording error or an actual discrepancy in the count. Currently, the appellant has requested an explanation from the Election Commission.

“We agreed to proceed with checking the voter rosters during the additional verification on August 3,” Attorney Do explained, “We also requested that the image comparison request be included in the verification items, but we have yet to be notified of whether the Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission will accept it.”

Recount site for the Tongyeong mayoral election. Out of 700 ballots from Misu-dong, 187 have different left and right margins. The left margin is missing. [Photo provided by the appellant]Verification is August 3, but Written Request Deadline is July 31

Another point of contention is that the deadline for the appellant’s written submissions falls before the date of the additional verification.

According to Attorney Do, the Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission notified the appellant of a schedule requiring them to submit their arguments and related documents by July 31, with a decision on the appeal to be issued on August 10.

However, the additional verification that could not be completed on the day of the recount is scheduled for August 3, three days later.

If this schedule proceeds, even if new facts are confirmed during the August 3 verification, it will be difficult for the appellant to consolidate them into an additional written submission.

“It makes no sense to set an additional verification for August 3 and then demand that all written submissions be made by July 31,” said Attorney Do, stating that they have filed a request to extend the deadline for written submissions.

In the aforementioned call, the Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission explained that they plan to record issues raised at the recount site in a verification report and photograph the contested ballots to review them during the appeal decision process.

They further stated that issues concerning ballot transport, sealing, storage, and identity with the original ballots are matters for the committee to decide during the appeal process, not points to be concluded immediately at the recount site.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded at this stage that the Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission has definitively rejected the request for image comparison.

Whether the Gyeongsangnam-do Election Commission accepts the appellant’s request for image-to-physical ballot comparison for the August 3 verification and grants the extension for written submissions will likely determine the effectiveness of this additional verification process.