Summary
Limits on the right to vote may be based on residency.
Obligations
Election Parts
Issues
Criteria
Quotes
- The States party to the Convention commit themselves to: e) conduct voter registration on the basis of a legislatively established non-discriminatory and effective procedure that envisage such parameters of registration as age, citizenship, place of residence, basic document certifying citizen’s identity.
- The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph [right to participate in government] only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil... capacity or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings.
- The European Commission of Human Rights has decided on several occasions in the past that having to satisfy a residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in parliamentary elections is not an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see X and Association Y v. Italy, application no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, Decisions and Reports (DR) 24, p. 192; X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, DR 15, p. 137; and Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175).
- Accordingly, the exclusion from the right to vote of any groups or categories of the general population must be reconcilable with the underlying purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ždanoka, cited above, § 105). The Court has held, inter alia, that domestic legislation making the right to vote subject to a minimum age or to residence conditions is, in principle, compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Hirst, § 62, and Hilbe, both cited above). It has acknowledged that any general, automatic and indiscriminate departure from the principle of universal suffrage risks undermining the democratic validity of the legislature thus elected and the laws it promulgates (see Hirst, cited above).
- As regards restrictions on the exercise of the right to vote abroad based on the criterion of the voter’s place of residence, Convention institutions have in the past accepted several reasons justifying such restrictions: first of all, the presumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or less continually concerned with his country’s day-to-day problems and has less knowledge of them; secondly, the fact that it is impracticable for the parliamentary candidates to present the different electoral issues to citizens abroad and that non-resident citizens have no influence on the selection of candidates or on the formulation of their electoral programmes; thirdly, the close connection between the right to vote in parliamentary elections and the fact of being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies so elected; and, fourthly, the legitimate concern the legislature may have to limit the influence of citizens living abroad in elections on issues which, while admittedly fundamental, primarily affect persons living in the country (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI ; X and association Y v. Italy, no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, Decisions and Reports (DR) 24, p. 192 ; and Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, DR 90-B, p. 5). More recently the Court held that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30158/06, 6 February 2007, and Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece [GC], no. 42202/07, § 69, ECHR 2012).
- The Court considers that the residence requirement which prompted the application is justified on account of the following factors: firstly, the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or less continually concerned with his country’s day-to-day problems and has less knowledge of them; secondly, the fact that it is impracticable for the parliamentary candidates to present the different electoral issues to citizens abroad and that non-resident citizens have no influence on the selection of candidates or on the formulation of their electoral programmes; thirdly, the close connection between the right to vote in parliamentary elections and the fact of being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies so elected; and, fourthly, the legitimate concern the legislature may have to limit the influence of citizens living abroad in elections on issues which, while admittedly fundamental, primarily affect persons living in the country.
- State reports should indicate whether any groups, such as permanent residents, enjoy [the right to register] on a limited basis, for example, by having the right to vote in local elections or to hold office.
- Residency requirements, if applied, must be imposed to as not to exclude the homeless from the right to vote.
- As to the condition of residence in relation to the right to stand for elections, as such, the Court has never expressed its opinion on this point. However, in relation to the separate right to vote, the Court has held that it was not per se an unreasonable or arbitrary requirement (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI). The Court considers that a residence requirement for voting may be justified on the following grounds: (1) the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or continuously concerned with, and has less knowledge of, a country’s day-to-day problems; (2) the impracticality and sometimes undesirability (in some cases impossibility) of parliamentary candidates presenting the different electoral issues to citizens living abroad so as to secure the free expression of opinion; (3) the influence of resident citizens on the selection of candidates and on the formulation of their electoral programmes; and (4) the correlation between one’s right to vote in parliamentary elections and being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies so elected (see Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports 90-A, referring to previous Commission case-law).
- The Court has previously implied that the ease with which an applicant can acquire the citizenship of his State of residence, and thus exercise his right to vote in that country, may be relevant to the proportionality of a residence requirement in his State of origin (see Doyle, cited above). The possibility of acquiring a new citizenship is not, however, decisive given that the acquisition of such citizenship may have adverse consequences in other areas of one’s life and that an applicant’s interest in casting his vote in the State to which he feels most closely connected must also be given due weight.
- The Court reiterates that national practices concerning voting rights for expatriates and the exercise of such rights are far from being uniform across the States Parties. Broadly speaking, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not impose on States Parties any obligation to enable citizens resident abroad to exercise their right to vote (see Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos [GC], cited above, §§ 74 and 75). Furthermore, the work of the Venice Commission has shown that withholding or limiting the voting rights of expatriates does not amount to a restriction on the principle of universal suffrage. In fact, the different interests involved should be weighed up, including the State’s choice to enable its expatriate citizens to exercise their voting rights, practical and security considerations relating to the exercise of this right, and the technical arrangements for implementing it.
- It is possible that the applicant has not severed ties with his country of origin and that some of the factors indicated above are therefore inapplicable to this case. However, the law cannot take account of every individual case but must lay down a general rule. Furthermore, the applicant cannot argue that he is affected by the acts of political institutions to the same extent as resident citizens. Thus the applicant’s situation is different from that of a resident citizen, and that justifies the residence requirement.
- ...[T]here is agreement that it is appropriate to define voter eligibility based upon certain other characteristics: Citizenship, Residency, and Age.
- Reasonable restrictions [on voter registration] include: residence, citizenship, legal detention... criminal conviction.
- [T]he right to vote and to be elected may be accorded to citizens residing abroad.
- The obligation to vote in an embassy or consulate may in practice severely restrict the right to vote of citizens living abroad. This restriction may be justified on the grounds that the other means of voting (postal vote, proxy voting, e-voting) are not always reliable.
- A residence requirement may be imposed; ii. Residence in this case means habitual residence. iii. a length of residence requirement may be imposed on nationals solely for local or regional elections; iv. the requisite period of residence should not exceed six months; a longer period may be required only to protect national minorities.
- In general, these limitations fall within four categories: (1) minimum age requirements; (2) citizenship requirements; (3) residency requirements; and (4) loss of franchise due to mental incapacity, criminal conduct, or other factors. Any limitation or restriction on the right to vote, however, must be scrutinized as to whether it is clearly justified due to exceptional circumstances and whether it is proportionate to the circumstances in question.
- The Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters produced by the Venice Commission provides simply that “the right to vote and to be elected may be accorded to citizens residing abroad”, without making it a requirement to grant such a right.
- The UN Human Rights Committee found a “seven-year residency requirement deemed to be excessive.
- Universal suffrage means in principle that all human beings have the right to vote. This right may, however, and indeed should, be subject to certain conditions: b. Nationality: i. a nationality requirement may apply; ii. however, it would be advisable for foreigners to be allowed to vote in local elections after a certain period of residence.
- [T]he following measure prescribed by law or regulations would not be considered discriminatory: measures establishing a reasonable period which must elapse before naturalized persons may exercise their political rights, provided that they are combined with a liberal naturalization policy.
- Voting rights should be based on considerations that include: citizenship; legal age of majority (this may differ from country to country); residency requirements; any other additional grounds for disqualification (eg, prisoners in detention, persons with a criminal record... and so on).
- Reasonable restrictions [on voting] have included distinctions based on age, citizenship, residency...
- Entitlement to cast an external vote is usually linked to the general entitlement to vote that applies to all eligible electors in a country. However, there are sometimes extra requirements imposed on external electors, such as a minimum period of previous residence or an intention to return to the country. In some cases only limited groups of external electors may be eligible to vote, such as diplomats, other public officials and members of the armed forces, and their families.
- ...States should: Establish an effective, impartial and non-discriminatory procedure for the registration of voters; Establish clear criteria for the registration of voters, such as age, citizenship and residence, and ensure that such provisions are applies without distinction of any kind.
- Universal suffrage means in principle that all human beings have the right to vote. This right may, however, and indeed should, be subject to certain conditions: c. Residence: i. a residence requirement may be imposed; ii. residence in this case means habitual residence; iii. a length of residence requirement may be imposed on nationals solely for local or regional elections; iv. the requisite period of residence should be reasonable and, as a rule, should not exceed six months; v. it is desirable that the right to vote be accorded to citizens residing abroad.
- Residency requirements may discriminate against national minorities. Residence may operate in a discriminatory way against refugees or internally displaced persons. Internally displaced persons should be able to exercise their right to vote; where possible, refugees should enjoy some facility to vote.
- Reasonable restrictions may include factors such as residence, citizenship, current incarceration or having been convicted of a crime
- It is perfectly legitimate to require voters living abroad to register to be able to vote, even if registration is automatic for residents.
- The European Court of Human Rights held that the restriction of the right to vote to citizens resident in national territory could be justified on the following grounds: “(1) the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or continuously concerned with, and has less knowledge of, a country’s day-to-day problems; (2) the impracticality and sometimes undesirability (in some cases impossibility) of parliamentary candidates presenting the different electoral issues to citizens living abroad so as to secure the free expression of opinion; (3) the influence of resident citizens on the selection of candidates and on the formulation of their electoral programmes; and (4) the correlation between one’s right to vote in parliamentary elections and being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies so elected”.
- If external voting rights are granted, attention should be paid to ensure the equality of votes. Though it appears to be acceptable to limit external voting rights to certain types of elections, e.g. for President or the national Parliament, it may be problematic to not let external voters fully participate in those elections.
- Voting from abroad is subject to a number of practical conditions, beginning with registration on the electoral roll. Generally, a prior application is required from the citizen abroad (“active” registration system). In these cases, it is necessary to determine the deadline for citizens to register, the form required for this type of declaration and the authority to which these applications must be made.
- In practice…there is a growing tendency to broaden the franchise, for example, by including overseas residents.
- Reasonable restrictions may include factors such as residence, citizenship, convicted persons in legal detention, and those considered mentally incapacitated by the courts.
- A residency requirement has been upheld by the European Commission on Human Rights, for a number of reasons: the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly involved or knowledgeable; the impracticability for candidates to present electoral issues to citizens abroad; the need to prevent electoral fraud, the risk of which is increased by postal voting; and finally, the link between representation and the obligation to pay taxes.