Central Election Commission [Photo=Yonhap News]

Expanding voting rights is a recurring theme during every election. Promises have been made to allow overseas Koreans to participate, enable those with mobility issues to vote, and ensure that individuals in hospitals, nursing homes, and correctional facilities can exercise their rights.

However, for the expansion of voting rights to truly function, both systems and statistics must be in place. Systems are the mechanisms that open the path, and statistics are the evidence confirming whether that path has actually been opened.

The Central Election Commission stands before this question today.

The system has been opened, but have the statistics been closed off?

According to checks by the Hankook America Daily with the Election Commission, only 496 new applications were received for overseas voting to participate in the referendum.

Furthermore, when asked about the scale of voting conducted within institutions and facilities such as hospitals, nursing homes, mental health facilities, prisons, and detention centers, the Election Commission responded, "Please submit a request for information disclosure."

Basic statistics directly related to the guarantee of voting rights were not immediately available through simple media inquiries.

Systems and Operation are Different

The 496 new applications for overseas voters are the first signal that the expanded voting rights system needs to be examined for its actual impact on participation.

The Election Commission opened the application process for referendum participation, but the actual number of new applicants was extremely low.

The core issue is the requirement for passport numbers. If passport numbers were operated as a de facto mandatory item at the application stage, this could have acted as an administrative barrier to entry for overseas Koreans.

The explanation that nationality and identity verification are necessary is understandable.

However, if the means of verification were effectively fixed around passport numbers, then while claiming to have broadened voting rights, a threshold was in fact set at the application stage.

The low number of applications could be due to a simple lack of promotion, but it could also be a signal that the system design did not adequately support actual participation.

However, a more significant issue in this fact-check is voting from institutions and facilities.

If the low number of overseas voter applications points to accessibility issues, then voting from institutions and facilities involves both accessibility and manageability.

This is because it is a system that guarantees voting rights for voters who cannot go to polling stations, and at the same time, it is an area where external verification can be more limited than at regular polling stations.

Voting from Institutions and Facilities is the Core Issue

However, a more significant issue in this fact-check is voting from institutions and facilities. While the 496 new overseas voter applications are an indicator of accessibility problems, voting from institutions and facilities is a core issue that affects both the guarantee of voting rights and the trustworthiness of election management.

Voters within institutions such as hospitals, nursing homes, and mental health facilities find it difficult to go to regular polling stations. The residential voting system exists for them, but the existence of the system does not automatically mean the guarantee of their rights.

It should be possible to confirm how many facilities registered, how many facilities accommodated 10 or more residential voters, how many polling booths were set up within facilities, and how many votes were actually cast.

This is why the Hankook America Daily inquired with the Election Commission about the scale of voting from institutions and facilities. This data is not intended to monitor specific voters.

It is the minimum aggregate data required to confirm whether the voting rights of voters within hospitals, nursing homes, and correctional facilities were actually guaranteed and whether the election management process operated in accordance with the spirit of the law.

However, the Election Commission did not provide an immediate answer to this inquiry, instead guiding, "Please submit a request for information disclosure." While this is not a definitive statement that the statistics do not exist, it is clear that basic statistics directly linked to the guarantee of voting rights and the credibility of election management were not immediately explained through media inquiries.

Information Disclosure Requests are a Wall of Time

The Hankook America Daily inquired with the Election Commission about the scale of voting from institutions and facilities. However, the Election Commission did not provide an immediate answer, instead guiding, "Please submit a request for information disclosure."

This is not a definitive statement that the statistics do not exist. However, it is clear that basic statistics directly linked to the guarantee of voting rights and the credibility of election management were not immediately explained through media inquiries.

Information disclosure is a citizen's right. However, in verification reporting immediately before an election, this process can effectively become a wall of time.

Under the Act on Disclosure of Information, public institutions are generally required to decide whether to disclose information within 10 days of receiving a request, and may extend this period by another 10 days if unavoidable.

If basic statistics such as the scale of voting from institutions and facilities are relegated to the information disclosure request process in the context of an imminent election, the public's right to know and right to oversight will be difficult to exercise in a timely manner before the election.

Statistics disclosed after the election may be post-hoc data, but they are unlikely to serve as pre-election verification material.

To verify whether the expansion of voting rights is actually functioning, whether voting management within facilities is being conducted in accordance with the law's intent, and how the criteria for setting up polling booths in facilities with 10 or more people are being applied on the ground, timely access to statistics before the election is crucial.

Korean society has already reached a stage where it cannot avoid the issue of vulnerable voters.

Considering the number of patients with dementia and those receiving treatment for severe mental illnesses alone, the guarantee of voting rights and the management of procedures have become equally important in hospitals, nursing homes, mental health facilities, and disability care facilities.

This does not mean that all of them are eligible for residential voting. However, if we are to talk about expanding voting rights, it must be possible to verify whether the guidance actually reached them, whether their intentions were confirmed, whether the line between assistance and proxy voting was managed, and whether the return process was recorded.

Statistics are not tools to suspect voters. Statistics are a mechanism to protect voters' rights. In particular, statistics on residential voting from facilities are not data for restricting voting rights but public records to confirm whether voting rights have actually been guaranteed.

If the Election Commission cannot explain with statistics in a timely manner whether the expansion of voting rights is actually functioning, while claiming to expand them, the credibility of the system is bound to be shaken.

Proof Before Promotion

For the Election Commission to promote the expansion of voting rights, factual verification must precede it.

If application channels have been opened for overseas Koreans, the reasons for the actual applications being limited to 496 must be explained. If there is a possibility that the passport number requirement acted as a barrier to entry, it must be clarified whether alternative verification methods existed and how applications without passport numbers were processed.

The same applies to residential voting from institutions.

Voters in hospitals, nursing homes, and correctional facilities are legally eligible to vote, and facilities with 10 or more people have standards for setting up polling booths. Therefore, it must be explained the extent to which facility-specific registration status, polling booth installation status, actual scale of residential voting, and return management status can be compiled and disclosed.

Parts requiring personal information protection can be handled as de-identified, aggregate statistics. What is needed for election management credibility is not personal information but whether the system is functioning.

The conclusion is statistics.

The system has been opened. Applications for overseas Koreans to participate in the referendum have been opened, and the residential voting system also exists.

However, the mere fact that the system has been opened does not mean that voting rights have been guaranteed.

If the number of new overseas voter applications was only 496, the reasons for this must be explained.

When asked about the scale of residential voting from institutions, instead of saying to submit an information disclosure request, the existence of basic statistics and the scope of their disclosure should be explained first.

If the system is open and the statistics are closed, then it is not an expansion of voting rights, but merely an appearance of expanded voting rights.

What the Election Commission must do is not to promote the expansion of voting rights, but to prove with statistics that this expansion is actually functioning.

❄ This article was published in the Weekly Hankook America Daily, Issue 9 (2nd week of May).