National Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk attends a general meeting of lawmakers at the National Assembly on the 17th, as lawmaker Song Seok-jun requests to speak publicly to the moderator. [Photo=Yonhap News]The National Power Party has limited the scope of election appeals for the June 3 local elections after a general meeting of lawmakers on the 17th.

While leader Jang Dong-hyuk insisted on filing election nullification appeals in all 16 cities and provinces nationwide, floor leader Jung Jin-seok countered that efforts should be concentrated on the six to seven regions where issues like ballot shortages and polling interruptions were confirmed.

A majority of the lawmakers attending the general meeting supported limiting appeals to seven regions, and Jang accepted this decision. This structure was established not through a formal party vote, but by the leader accepting the majority opinion of lawmakers as the party's executive policy.

The central party filed appeals in seven regions: Seoul, Gyeonggi, Incheon, Busan, Ulsan, Gwangju/Jeonnam, and Chungbuk. Subsequently, the actual number of regions where appeals were filed increased to 11 as the candidates for governor in Daejeon, Chungnam, Sejong, and Jeonbuk directly expressed their intent to file appeals.

However, the addition of four regions at the request of candidates does not mean that National Power Party lawmakers have united in the necessity of nationwide relief.

Appeals Scaled Back Amidst Party Leadership Struggles

At the general meeting on the 17th, the scope of election appeals and the future of party leader Jang Dong-hyuk were discussed together.

When lawmaker Song Seok-jun requested to speak publicly, lawmakers aligned with the party leadership tried to stop him, leading to shouting matches. In the closed-door general meeting, calls for Jang's resignation and opposing opinions clashed. The legal response regarding the deprivation of suffrage and the leader's position following the local election defeat were intertwined in one meeting.

Whether Jang used the demand for a re-election for his own political survival is a separate issue. However, this does not make the judgment of those who advocated for limited appeals correct.

In the main vote of the June 3 local elections, 7,194 ballots were short across 91 polling stations nationwide. Polling was suspended at 26 locations for periods ranging from a minimum of 4 minutes to a maximum of 105 minutes. The shortage scale increased by approximately 1.5 times compared to the 50 locations and 4,726 ballots initially reported by the Election Commission.

The fact that the scope of the problem expanded during the investigation also means that it cannot be concluded that there are no issues in regions where problems have not yet been identified.

“Unidentified” and “non-existent” are different.

Was There Sufficient Basis for Limited Appeals?

There were two main grounds for the limited appeals argument.

One was that appealing in regions where suffrage infringement had not been confirmed could weaken the legal basis. The other was that a nationwide appeal could be perceived as a rejection of the entire local election, providing an opportunity for the Democratic Party to counterattack.

Neither argument is entirely without merit. Filing a comprehensive appeal without confirmed illegal acts or damage in specific regions could reduce legal persuasiveness. Prioritizing the political slogan of a nationwide re-election might amplify the controversy over election rejection rather than clarifying suffrage infringement.

However, whether these concerns justify reducing the scope of legal action before the investigation is even complete is a separate matter.

Article 219 of the Public Official Election Act stipulates that voters, parties, or candidates who dispute the validity of a local election can file an appeal within 14 days of the election. In contrast, Article 224 states that if a violation of election regulations is deemed to have affected the election results, the entire election or parts thereof may be declared void.

Filing an appeal and a ruling of election nullification are not the same stage.

The limited appeals argument effectively resulted in applying the strict criteria required for a final nullification judgment at the stage of deciding the scope of the appeal.

The fact that not all facts have been proven to the extent that a re-election would be granted is entirely different from the issue of whether there is no need to investigate the extent of damage and preserve legal rights through appeals.

Furthermore, the period for election appeals is limited to 14 days.

Once the deadline passes, the channels for disputing the validity of that election may narrow, even if new facts emerge. The legal weakness of a full appeal and the risk of losing the opportunity for relief due to the expiration of the appeal period should have been considered together.

What the National Power Party should have done first was not to politically choose between all 16 regions and just 7.

They should have secured data on the initial printing volume and additional delivery of ballots at each polling station nationwide, the duration of polling suspension, the number of voters who left the polling stations, polling records, situation reports, and the status of missing voter rolls to determine the necessity of appeals by region.

If data acquisition was not complete, they should have sought ways to preserve voters' rights to the maximum extent possible within the appeal period, by combining evidence preservation with a comprehensive survey.

Is the Demand for Re-election a Claim of ‘Some Hardcore Supporters’?

Recent opinion polls indicate that the demands of young people and citizens calling for “fraudulent election re-elections and on-site vote counting” cannot be dismissed as mere voices of a few rally participants or hardcore supporters.

A survey of 1,001 adults nationwide conducted by Yonhap News Agency for Pene and Mike on the 12th-13th showed that 54.7% supported re-election, while 38.8% opposed it. The response for abolishing the advance voting system was also 55.2%. Support for re-election was 71.2% among those in their 20s and below, and 74.5% among those in their 30s.

A Korea Gallup survey showed 44% in favor of a full re-election and 48% opposed, but support was 67% among those aged 18-29 and 62% among those in their 30s. 67% of respondents perceived the current situation as a "problem of poor election management and infringement of suffrage."

A Realmeter survey showed 45.6% in favor of re-election and 51.0% opposed, with the opposition leading but within the margin of error. Support for re-election was 58.5% among those aged 18-29 and 63.2% among those in their 30s. 91.6% responded that strict responsibility should be imposed on the Election Commission's poor management.

While opinion polls cannot substitute for the legal requirements of a re-election, they can serve as an indicator of public will, showing the direction in which a political party should pursue fact-finding and relief.

Although the results of the re-election support/opposition varied by survey, support ranged from 44% to 54.7%.

In no survey could the demand for re-election be considered a minority opinion to be ignored. In particular, in the Korea Gallup and Realmeter surveys, support for re-election among those in their 20s and 30s reached 58.5-67%, and the response calling for strict responsibility from the Election Commission exceeded 90%.

This is why some argue that the National Power Party should fear not only the political label of "election rejection" that the Democratic Party might attach.

They should be more afraid of public perception that they narrowed the scope of legal relief from the outset due to concerns about attacks from the opposing party, even though polling was suspended and ballots were insufficient due to the failure of state agencies to prepare.

The slogan "Fraudulent election re-election, on-site vote counting" spreading nationwide from Olympic Park does not, in itself, legally prove a fraudulent election.

However, it seems necessary to reflect on whether it is the attitude of a responsible party to push away the demands for suffrage restoration and election system reform contained in that slogan by labeling it as "election rejection."

It is also necessary to heed the suggestion that what the National Power Party should do now is not to engage in infighting over party leadership, but to concretize citizens' demands through evidence preservation, comprehensive surveys, election appeals, parliamentary investigations, Election Commission reform, and discussions on expanding on-site voting and vote counting.

The attack of "election rejection" is frightening, but is it not frightening to reject the public will demanding an investigation into the truth of suffrage deprivation?

The National Power Party must answer this question.