No Tae-ak, Chairman of the National Election Commission

During the main vote of the June 3rd local elections, voters experienced delays and on-site confusion due to a shortage of ballots. 

Voting was temporarily suspended at some polling stations, and voters had to cast their ballots even after the scheduled closing time. 

The National Election Commission issued a public apology. However, this situation is not something that can be resolved with a simple "we are sorry." The failure in election management has already materialized as a failure to guarantee citizens' voting rights.

Elections are not justified solely by their results. A normal election is one where voters can cast their ballots without hindrance at the designated time and place. 

If citizens arriving at polling stations had to wait or could not vote on time due to the state's lack of preparedness, this is not a mere inconvenience. It is an interruption of the exercise of sovereignty. 

In a democracy, a vote is not a statistic but sovereignty. The difference in the vote count afterward cannot diminish the gravity of the infringement of suffrage.

The NEC's duty is not to predict voter turnout. The NEC is not an institution that predicts what percentage of people will vote; it is an institution that must guarantee that all voters who come to the polling stations can vote without disruption. 

Election management is not statistical prediction; it is the guarantee of sovereignty. The very fact that there was a shortage of ballots indicates that the most basic safety measures for election management failed to function.

An Act of Constitutional Disruption That Prevented the Exercise of Voting Rights Should Be Considered for Sedition Charges

This incident cannot be downplayed as mere mismanagement of the election. 

If preventing the exercise of voting rights in the National Assembly became a key issue of constitutional disruption, then preventing the exercise of citizens' suffrage is blocking its very source. The National Assembly is formed by the people's votes. Local power also derives its legitimacy from the people's votes. 

When the people's right to vote is halted, the legitimacy of the National Assembly, the legitimacy of local power, and the functioning of democracy are all shaken. 

While the two matters cannot be legally equated, the obstruction of citizens' suffrage is a matter of constitutional disruption that cannot be taken lightly, in that it hinders the functioning of the constitutional order.

Therefore, the scope of the investigation into this incident should include the possibility of applying charges of sedition. 

Whether sedition is established under criminal law is a matter for the judicial process to determine, including the intent of constitutional disruption and the elements of an uprising. 

However, it should be the core mission of a special prosecutor to determine whether citizens' voting rights were obstructed by the actions or omissions of state agencies, whether such obstruction was organized and intentional, and what impact it had on the legitimacy of the election results.

If intent and organization are confirmed, the possibility of applying sedition charges should not be excluded.

The Chairman of the National Election Commission stands at the apex of responsibility. The NEC is a constitutional institution independent of power. However, independence is not a shield for evading responsibility. 

The intention is to be independent from power, not independent from the public's scrutiny and accountability. 

Rather, the NEC's independence is the basis for a heavier responsibility. If an institution granted independence to protect elections fails to uphold the basic conditions of elections, it is natural to hold its highest responsible official constitutionally accountable.

The National Assembly Should Immediately Initiate Impeachment Proceedings Against Noh Tae-ak

The time has passed to leave the fate of Noh Tae-ak, Chairman of the NEC, to his own discretion. 

Members of the NEC are subject to impeachment proceedings under the Constitution. Unlike presidential impeachment, an impeachment motion against an NEC member can be proposed by more than one-third of the National Assembly's total seats and can be passed with the approval of a majority of the total seats. 

The number of seats held by the People Power Party alone is sufficient to meet the requirement for proposing the motion. The issue is not the number of seats but the will. The National Assembly must immediately commence impeachment proceedings against Chairman Noh Tae-ak.

Impeachment is not political retaliation. It is a constitutional process by which the National Assembly holds accountable a head of a constitutional institution for a grave dereliction of duty. Specifically, a resolution for impeachment suspends the powers of the accused until the impeachment trial.

This is precisely what is important. To investigate responsibility under Chairman Noh Tae-ak's tenure is no different from asking the NEC to investigate itself.

Reasons for Introducing a Special Prosecutor

The clarification of responsibility is not a reason to postpone impeachment proceedings, but rather a process that should be conducted independently after the suspension of the highest responsible official's powers through impeachment. The mechanism that enables this independent clarification of responsibility is a special prosecutor.

This is not a matter to be concluded by simply confirming the fact that there was a shortage of ballots. 

It is necessary to ascertain who calculated the quantity of ballots, who approved the printing quantity, to which polling stations how many were allocated, when the shortage report was filed, who ordered additional transfers, and at what stage the on-site confusion was left unaddressed. 

Internal investigations by the NEC cannot uncover this structure. This is why both a parliamentary inquiry and a special prosecutor are needed simultaneously.

The target of the special prosecutor is not a simple administrative error. It is necessary to determine whether the ballot shortage incident was an accidental administrative error, a structural management failure concentrated in specific regions, whether there was an omission or concealment of reports, and furthermore, whether there were any illegal acts that obstructed the exercise of citizens' voting rights. 

Intent cannot be definitively determined at this moment. However, revealing whether there was intent is precisely the mission of the special prosecutor. If the investigation ends the moment the NEC says "there is no problem," then election credibility cannot be restored from the outset.

The National Assembly Must Initiate Evidence Preservation

The National Assembly must also immediately proceed with evidence preservation. 

The ballot boxes in question, ballots, voting records, on-site reports, printing and allocation and transfer documents, additional procurement routes, and records of voting delays must all be preserved. 

Election credibility is restored not by words but by records. It is not the NEC's apology but the numbers, procedures, and lines of responsibility that must be disclosed to the public. 

The electoral system must also be reformed entirely. 

This incident shows not only the management failure of the NEC. It demonstrates that the very structure where the public cannot directly verify the election process breeds distrust. 

In elections, trust precedes convenience. The entire process, including early voting, ballot management, vote counting procedures, electronic equipment operation, and the observation system, must be re-examined from scratch. 

The principle of same-day voting should be strengthened, and manual counting, where one vote is checked by hand at the polling station, should be institutionalized. 

The National Assembly must not remain silent. 

If the National Assembly merely observes the NEC's apology and internal investigation in the face of an election where voting rights were halted, then the National Assembly also cannot escape responsibility for election distrust. 

The NEC's independence is not a privilege to protect a responsible party who has failed. It is a constitutional mechanism to protect citizens' voting rights. If that mechanism becomes a shield for evading responsibility, the National Assembly must correct it.

This situation is not a problem that can be solved with an apology. The failure to guarantee voting rights has already materialized. 

The obstruction of citizens' suffrage is a matter of constitutional disruption. If intent and organization are confirmed, the scope of the special prosecutor's investigation must include the possibility of applying charges of sedition. 

The National Assembly must immediately initiate impeachment proceedings against Noh Tae-ak, Chairman of the NEC. Concurrently, a special prosecutor must be appointed to fully investigate the ballot shortage incident and determine whether citizens' suffrage was obstructed, revealing the truth to the public. 

The clarification of responsibility is not a reason to postpone impeachment proceedings, but a process that must be completed through a special prosecutor after impeachment. 

This is the minimum starting point for restoring the shattered trust in elections.