The Constitutional Court on a snowy day. Yonhap News 

The Constitutional Court recently dismissed a constitutional appeal against the current system that allows for printed instead of handwritten signatures by election officials on early voting ballots. While the ruling order appears to uphold previous judgments, the decision left a clear inflection point in the constitutional discussion surrounding the early voting system, with two justices presenting dissenting opinions arguing for unconstitutionality.

The issue in this case is the same as in case 2022헌마232, decided on October 26, 2023. At that time, the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that the regulation allowing printed signatures in place of handwritten ones by early voting managers did not violate the Constitution. However, Justice Kim Hyung-doo pointed out in a supplementary opinion that while the current regulation is difficult to deem unconstitutional, legislative improvements to ensure handwritten signatures by election officials would be desirable to dispel public suspicion of fraudulent elections.

However, the judgment in this current case, decided in December 2025, took a different turn. Justice Kim Hyung-doo, along with Justice Kim Bok-hyeong, presented a dissenting opinion. Their reasoning was that the Public Official Election Act prescribes the act of 'handwritten signature' by an early voting manager, and there is no explicit provision allowing for printed signatures. Therefore, allowing printed signatures through subordinate rules exceeded the limits of delegation.

This change is by no means unusual, considering the nature of constitutional adjudication. Adultery, conscientious objection to military service, and abortion were all previously ruled constitutional, but subsequent decisions have shifted to unconstitutional or unconstitutional but can be amended, reflecting accumulated societal perceptions and changing factual circumstances. The judgments of Constitutional Court justices are not immutable conclusions but are formed based on the shared facts and public common sense of their time.

Justice Kim Hyung-doo, in particular, is known for his willingness to quickly embrace new factual findings and international standards. While he limited his opinion in October 2023 to recommending legislative improvements, his explicit dissenting opinion in December 2025 indicates a further deepening of concerns regarding the early voting system.

What is particularly noteworthy is Justice Kim Hyung-doo's position as a full member of the Venice Commission. The Venice Commission advocates for the general principle that all stages of an election must be transparent, observable, and verifiable by the public. In light of these international election standards, it is difficult to avoid the criticism that South Korea's early voting system relies excessively on an IT system, lacks independent verification of voter numbers, and restricts observation and verification processes.

Issues such as the absence of a method to independently verify voter numbers during early voting, instances of individuals being prevented from attempting verification or filming inside and outside polling stations, and controversies surrounding restricted observation of the ballot sorting process at post offices have been repeatedly raised. These structural flaws undermine not only the fairness of elections but also public trust in their outcomes.

The judgments of Constitutional Court justices cannot be detached from these realities. Justices' decisions are based on the facts known at the time, societal perceptions, and public common sense. If the problems with the early voting system become more concretely revealed and publicly debated in the future, it is possible that the constitutional evaluation may change.

The dissenting opinions revealed in the December 2025 Constitutional Court decision suggest that the practice of substituting printed signatures for handwritten ones by early voting managers can no longer be dismissed as a mere matter of administrative convenience. The shift from a unanimous constitutional decision in October 2023 to the emergence of dissenting opinions in December 2025 is a clear signal that a re-examination of the early voting system as a whole has become unavoidable.

This decision is a process, not a conclusion. Ahead of the next election, the need to seek a renewed constitutional judgment on whether the system substituting printed signatures for handwritten ones by early voting managers aligns with the fairness and transparency of elections required by the Constitution is growing.

By Reporter Jeong Woo-seok