On the first day of early voting for the 9th National Simultaneous Local Elections on May 29, a citizen watches a monitor labeled 'Voting Box Storage Location CCTV Viewing Area' in front of the Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission in Jongno-gu, Seoul. [Yonhap News]

Ahead of the local elections on June 3, controversy surrounding the fairness of election procedures is heating up. The Election Crime Watch Group (under Freedom & Innovation) recently sent an official notice to approximately 3,800 local government bodies, including cities, counties, districts, towns, and townships, urging compliance with laws, stating that the Central Election Commission's (CEC) voting management procedures may be in violation of the law. In response, the CEC sent a clarification notice to the Election Crime Watch Group, stating that their actions are "lawful election management."

However, it is difficult to dismiss the doubts and contradictions that the CEC's clarification distorts the original intent of the law and neutralizes key safeguards of the election for administrative convenience. For the sake of the credibility of elections, the foundation of democracy, we intend to meticulously point out the problems in the CEC's clarification.

1. Suspicions and Contradictions Regarding the Ballot Manager's Seal (Signature)

The Public Official Election Act stipulates that the ballot manager must use "their own seal (personal seal)" when issuing ballot papers to prevent forgery and clarify responsibility for issuance. However, the CEC's administratively convenient management is undermining the purpose of this system at its root.

ㅇ The Issue of Uniform Production and Distribution by the CEC (Hollowing out the Meaning of Personal Seals): The law's requirement for the manager to use "their own seal" implies leaving a unique mark that cannot be easily forged by a state agency. However, the CEC standardizes the managers' seals and produces and distributes them in a uniform manner. If the CEC has the structure to produce identical seals at any time, this effectively nullifies the legal function of personal seals for preventing forgery. 

ㅇ The Problem of Collecting and Storing Personal Seals Uniformly (Risk of Arbitrary Possession): A bigger issue is that the CEC collects these seals and stores them directly before distributing them just before election day. There is no provision in the law that allows a state agency to collect personal seals and arbitrarily possess them. Who can guarantee that counterfeit ballots will not be produced during the period the CEC exclusively holds the seals? In election management, it is paramount to prevent suspicions from arising in the first place, rather than relying on the CEC's "good intentions."

2. Legal Overreach in the Stamping and Printing Process of Ballot Paper Personal Seals

Articles 157 and 158 of the Public Official Election Act clearly state that the ballot manager must "personally" stamp their seal before issuing ballot papers. This designates the ballot manager as the subject of the action.

ㅇ The Issue of Ballot Clerks Stamping on Behalf of Managers (Distortion of the Subject of Action): The CEC allows ballot clerks to stamp the manager's seal on their behalf, citing its authority to direct and supervise. The CEC's "supervisory authority" is not an absolute power that can arbitrarily change the "subject of action" stipulated by law. Broadly interpreting the strict delegation limits specified by law for administrative convenience is a clear legal overreach. 

ㅇ The Issue of 'Seal Printing' Under Exclusive Central Server Control (Unverifiable Absolute Power): This problem is even more severe with early voting, where seals are not directly stamped but are "printed" along with the seal design via a printer under the control of a central server. If the central server monopolizes the authority to issue ballots and print seals without the involvement of on-site managers, there is no way for on-site personnel to verify issues such as server malfunction, hacking, or intentional internal manipulation. This is a dangerous monopoly that threatens the fairness of elections, going beyond the computerization of election management.

3. Legal Procedures Cannot Be Compromised Even in the 'Separate Installation' and 'Separate Issuance' Process

The CEC argues that it is legal to install systems for separate issuance of ballots in two stages, given that polling stations for in-district and out-of-district early voting are separately demarcated, and that local elections involve multiple elections conducted simultaneously on election day.

The watchdog group also does not dispute the method of separate issuance for conducting multiple elections simultaneously. The key point is that even in the complex process of dividing areas and separating voter flows, the legally mandated "personal seal stamping procedure by the ballot manager" must not be neglected or omitted for even a single ballot. If the core procedure for detecting forged ballots is relaxed under the guise of efficiency, the election results will not be trusted.

4. Detachable Security Seals Cannot Replace 'Inter-Seal' on Ballot Boxes

The most negligent explanation concerns the ballot box sealing procedure. The CEC explains that they pre-sign the security seals and then affix them to the ballot boxes because signing on the curved surface of a sealed box could damage the signature. They also maintain that since they use special security seals that leave a trace (OPEN VOID) when removed, it is safe even without the 'inter-seal' stamped across the ballot box and the seal.

However, this is a dangerously complacent notion. If someone with malicious intent were to peel off an existing security seal sticker and reattach a pre-prepared new sticker with their signature, the anti-tampering function of the special security seal would be rendered useless. The purpose of the inter-seal is to prove that the seal and the ballot box are "originally continuous as one." If the signature becomes slightly smudged, one could simply replace the seal and sign again; this cannot justify a pre-signing method that opens the door to post-hoc manipulation for the sake of convenience.

5. Democracy Will Be Lost If We Remain Silent; It Is Now Time for the People to Act

To summarize the CEC's explanations, they are filled with a complacent and irresponsible bureaucratic attitude of "we acted within current rules and authority, so there are no problems." For what purpose and for whom are they so stubbornly pushing these dangerously flawed procedures that undermine the integrity of the election? We cannot dismiss the strong suspicion that behind this administratively convenient stubbornness, which leaves room for forgery and manipulation, lies an arrogant intention to monopolize control of election management and evade public scrutiny.

The authority granted by the people to the CEC is not absolute power to arbitrarily manipulate elections, but a solemn command to manage them fairly and without any room for even 1% of irregularities or misunderstandings. If we, the citizens, tacitly accept the CEC's behavior of undermining even the minimum legal safeguards, democracy in this land will be lost forever. In a society where electoral trust has collapsed, a voter's ballot is merely a piece of paper.

The era of begging for electoral fairness from the CEC's conscience is over. It is our right and responsibility as the sovereign to correct flawed election procedures and protect our sovereignty, by confronting these issues head-on and striving to achieve it. Now, it is time for the people to become eyes and ears, to meticulously uncover every piece of evidence of fraudulent elections.

Let's go to the polling stations! We must count and record the number of ballot papers handed out to individuals with our own hands. We must guard the ballot boxes, even if it means standing guard for the cold, long 4-5 days they are locked away in the CEC's backrooms, ensuring not a single ballot slip is missed. Let's go to the vote counting centers! We must secure the alleys where fake ballots might enter and monitor them thoroughly. Even from home, we must pursue and expose any single contradiction or anomaly hidden within the numbers of the CEC's announcement data presented on internet screens with the piercing gaze of the sovereign.

Silence is complicity, and passive observation is tacit approval. It is time for all citizens to become a raging wildfire, to shout together and unite in this solemn and great struggle of vigilance to shatter flawed election procedures and defend our sovereignty. In this era of sovereign crisis, it is time for the people to act directly.

◆ Dr. Wei Geum-sook

Chairperson of the Special Committee for Election Reform Against Fraud, Freedom & Innovation; Ph.D. in Computer Science