Electoral Reform Consultation Analysis

3. Voting

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to Q12 to Q25. These cover a variety of issues related to the voting process, including registration, accessibility and the extension of voting rights to specific groups.

Increasing voter registration

Levels of voter registration are significantly lower among some groups, such as young people and foreign nationals. The Electoral Commission, Returning Officers (ROs), and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) work to increase voter registration, including through conducting an annual canvass of voters and initiatives like 'Welcome to your vote week'. The consultation sought views on what more can be done to increase registration and active participation in elections by under-represented groups.

Q12: What do you think could be done nationally or locally to improve registration levels, especially among under-represented groups such as younger people and foreign nationals?

Just over two thirds of respondents gave an open-text comment in Q12. The most common theme was suggestions for how voter registration could be increased. In order of prevalence, these included:

• Increase public awareness, e.g. via media campaigns
• Information and awareness raising in schools
• Make voting compulsory
• Outreach with organisations working with target groups
• Work through schools to register young people
• Improve the standing of politics and politicians
• Remove barriers to registration
• Automatic registration
• Digital voting (see Q16)

Promotion and increased public awareness

Many suggested more promotion to encourage voter registration, mainly calling for either campaigns or media promotion, with social media most frequently mentioned. Some called for targeted marketing, for instance, with foreign nationals or in specific areas. One organisation felt that the Electoral Commission should have a campaign to inform the public that their information will not be shared with the Home Office to increase confidence in voting amongst foreign nationals.

"I suspect foreign nationals might not be aware that they are now eligible, if they weren't already. Information campaigns, in multiple languages, might help."- Individual

There were frequent calls to promote or encourage registration in schools, e.g., during lessons or via stalls. Suggested lessons where voting could be covered included Modern Studies as well as lessons on citizenship rights, civic society, politics or how government works. The Electoral Commission highlighted their political literacy materials that can be used in various school subjects or youth settings. West Lothian Council also highlighted the Democracy Challenge Initiative which is aimed at secondary schools, and the SAA felt activities like 'Welcome to your vote" week should be rolled out to all senior pupils.

Many suggested that voter registration, or even voting, could take place in secondary or tertiary education establishments. Examples included: Returning Officers visiting schools to provide information and register pupils, pre-registering as part of Modern Studies classes, block registration and annual registration events at local community venues. The SAA queried the need for some students to register twice:

"The ability of students to register at both their term time address and their home address pre-dates the introduction of postal votes on demand and it may be worth considering if, given the low registration levels at term time addresses, this ability to register twice is still necessary. Registration at universities perhaps should be limited to those who have no other address in the UK e.g. foreign national students. It is important to note that whilst students can register twice, they can only vote once in any UK Parliamentary, Scottish Parliamentary and Scottish Local Government Elections." - Scottish Assessors Association

However, attendees at the young persons event noted that increasing engagement is about more than just registering to vote:

"Make sure young people know about more than voting – getting involved in parliament, petitions. Not much of a focus on young people because parties are out to get votes and young people don't turn out; this adds to disengagement of young people as they don't see themselves or their interests represented. This is a chicken-and-egg cycle. Need to break this by doing more than voting every few years." – notes from engagement event

Compulsory voting or automatic registration

Among those arguing for compulsory voting, a few mentioned that this system is used in Australia. Others felt such a system could offer an opt-out option or 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper, or an exemption based on health grounds.

Several respondents advocated for automatic registration, for instance, registering all those who turn 16 years at school or when a national insurance number is issued.

Other suggestions

Those recommending improved trust in politics argued that candidates and politicians need to be more trustworthy, accountable and helpful for people to feel there is value in registering and voting. Some felt politics is too confrontational and vitriolic and that more consensus politics would be beneficial. Some respondents also highlighted the need for greater visibility of politicians at a local level.

Many advocated for more outreach work, with suggestions including targeting third-sector agencies that support under-registered groups, community and faith groups and consulates and embassies. A few requested funding to be allocated for this. One individual noted Section 25 (2) of the Referendums (Scotland) Act permits public services to promote electoral registration and felt the Scottish Government should encourage them to do so.

Several respondents raised the need to address barriers to voter registration. Suggestions included improving accessibility for those with disabilities or communication issues such as accessible venues, digital accessibility, and translated and accessible materials. A small number of third-sector organisations called for increased funding to facilitate community outreach work, e.g., to fund support and transport to accompany people to polling stations.

"The Scottish Government should, with the aim of spreading democracy, fund these institutions to be able to enable access to information on voter rights, as well as support with registration. Groups that support marginalised communities are likely to have already established a relationship and built trust within these communities but are largely stretched in terms of capacity. Additional funds should be set aside to ensure that these groups can provide access to important information about electoral rights, candidacy options, political parties, and government infrastructure in Scotland." – JustRight Scotland, Scottish Refugee Council, Maryhill Integration Network, The VOICES Network, Refugees for Justice

Nothing needs to change

The second most commonly mentioned theme raised by many respondents was that nothing further is needed to encourage voting. Linked to this, many respondents argued that it is up to the individual to choose to register.

Limiting voting rights

Many focused their response on the voting rights of specific groups. Respondents expressed a view that foreign nationals should not vote or stand as a candidate in devolved elections, though several qualified that if they had UK citizenship, they should be able to vote. Many also argued that those under 18 years of age should not vote.

Undertake more research or use existing data

Several respondents felt more investigation was needed into specific aspects of registration and voting. Suggestions included assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of different formats for voting and greater research into low registration levels of various groups, e.g. prisoners, students and foreign nationals.

Another theme was that several respondents highlighted data sources which could be used to support voter registration. This included taxation or welfare data, including council tax information or data with National Insurance. Some suggested introducing mandatory ID cards and linking registration that way. The SAA argued that greater access to other datasets would assist efforts to increase registration, calling for more opportunities to enable EROs to use government records such as Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) data to identify people who are not registered.

However, the Scottish Assessors Association also noted that considerable effort is already given to encouraging registrations. EROs can issue three communications to unregistered individuals, including an application form encouraging them to register, and can personally visit those over 16 years old. They also emphasised the voluntary nature of registration and noted limitations introduced with Individual Electoral Registration (IER) in 2014. These changes mean one household member can no longer register others in the household and that EROs can no longer add large groups together, e.g. registering all students at a university. About Dementia, Age Scotland also noted the negative impact of IER on care home residents who can no longer be 'block registered'.

The Electoral Commission called for a reform of electoral registration in the UK, with their research finding that the quality of the registers could be improved and streamlined for administrators if the UK government allowed greater access to data. They argued a modern, joined-up electoral register would involve:

• Using trusted public data to ensure the register remains accurate and complete, rather than relying solely on individuals providing information or registering.
• Making it easy for people to ensure their registration information is accurate and up to date through integrating registration applications into other public transactions.
• Improved digital functionality using existing public data to overcome certain issues e.g., using existing public data to swiftly identify those who have moved address.

"The UK's governments should support EROs to improve the accuracy and completeness of electoral registers – and improve efficiency to alleviate resource burdens – by giving them access to high-quality data from other public service organisations. Depending on the quality coverage of these data sets, this change could support automatic registration, integration of registration applications alongside other public service transactions, or simply enable EROs to send targeted invitations to register to specific individuals not currently correctly registered." - Electoral Commission

Other issues

Some respondents felt there should be a consistent approach across the UK. However, there was a concern that data sharing with other departments could put people off registering. Some recommended streamlining the registration process, such as allowing registration at polling stations. Examining initiatives from elsewhere was also suggested. Attendees at the young person event highlighted the difficulties young people with care experience face registering to vote, as they could move frequently between addresses.

"We support increasing voter registration and participation in elections. There may be good practice from the Welsh government which could inform the consultation. We suggest looking at the work of the Greater London Authority's Citizenship and Integration Initiative and other similar efforts to increase registration among hard-to-reach groups." - Association of Electoral Administrators

Improving the accessibility of voting

The UK Elections Act 2022 removed the legislative requirement for a Tactile Voting Device (TVD) - a device for use by blind and partially sighted people to support them to vote at the polling station - to be available at UK Parliament elections, replacing it with a broader requirement on Returning Officers to make it easier for voters with disabilities to vote independently and secretly. This consultation explores how best to approach this in relation to devolved elections.

Q13: The Scottish Government intends to amend the rule requiring only a specific form of Tactile Voting Device to be provided in polling stations, to allow more flexibility and ensure the accessibility support offered can be adapted to take account of future innovations. It also intends to place a duty on the Electoral Commission to provide guidance that includes minimum standards. Which of the following options would you prefer:

A majority of those answering Q13 (57%) indicated that no change to current legislation was required. Three in ten – 30% - felt the existing rule should be replaced by a general requirement on Returning Officers to provide appropriate support; this equates to over two thirds of those who felt a change was required. Among the 13 organisations who answered, only 8% felt no change was needed. Most suggested an alternative approach to the options in the consultation, as outlined below.

	n=	% Replaced by a general requirement on Returning Officers to provide appropriate support	% Replaced with a requirement to provide a non-specific form of tactile support	% No change to current legislation	% Other
All answering	455	30	8	57	5
- Individuals	442	30	9	58	3
- Organisations	13	23	0	8	69

Given the preference in the above table for either no change or for a general requirement on Returning Officers to provide support, only one in 20 respondents provided another option in response to Q13

Adopt a flexible approach to ensuring accessibility

The most prevalent theme, raised by some, was to enable polling stations to have a range of devices and support available to benefit people with disabilities and address any barriers to voting. The Scottish Government's desire to ensure accessibility for voters was commended by these respondents. The Law Society of Scotland highlighted that support to facilitate the participation of disabled people was necessary to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

ENABLE Scotland suggested other aids could help, including magnifying glasses, printing voting cards in different colours and contrasts, using larger font sizes for all voting cards and offering an audio option. A few others also mentioned this last option, and it was also believed by ENABLE Scotland to be inclusive for those with learning disabilities.

"Everyone should be able to register and cast their vote without facing barriers. While there have been significant improvements, we know there is still more to be done to improve the voting experience for disabled people." - Electoral Commission

Improvements over time

Some commented that TVDs should be available at polling stations. One reason was that requiring a TVD and other accessible equipment, such as audio support, in polling stations in the short-term could allow longer-term options to be explored. The Electoral Management Board for Scotland noted it has formed a sub-group on voting accessibility to trial and implement practical improvements, and its findings will be shared with the Scottish Government.

Implications for guidance

The need to introduce policy or clarify guidance was noted by some. Respondents felt the general principle of accessibility should be maintained rather than mandating specific accessibility requirements, not least due to technological advancements.

"The TVD may have been the best practical solution available at its introduction, but to require it now when other more sophisticated and more effective options may be available is inappropriate." - EMB

A small number of organisations supported the approach taken in the Electoral Commission's Guidance for Returning Officers - Assistance with voting for disabled people and welcomed the introduction of something similar in Scotland. This guidance states that polling stations should not remove any equipment previously used to support voting by disabled people and should provide a minimum level of accessibility aids, including TVD. Such an approach would allow local flexibility whilst ensuring a basic standard and assumption of accessibility. The Association of Electoral Administrators also highlighted that any guidance should set out minimum requirements that could prevent the RO from being subject to challenge.

The Electoral Commission offered to assist the Scottish Government in producing guidance for ROs, and noted ROs would require an additional budget if new accessibility measures were introduced:

"It is important that ROs are clear on how to meet their responsibilities in relation to supporting disabled voters. If the Scottish Government were to introduce such a requirement, we would provide guidance and examples of good practice to support them in discharging this duty… We have a specific duty to report on the steps taken by ROs to assist disabled voters at elections, and this will provide opportunities to learn from how the new duty has worked in practice. If the Scottish Government were to introduce such a duty on ROs, it would need to set out what funding would be available for additional support required as a result of any legislative change, as there is a risk that any new duty for ROs will not be effective if it is not funded appropriately." - Electoral Commission

Engage people with lived experience

Some respondents felt it was important to base decisions around the views of disabled people. For example, the EMB sub-group mentioned above will work with those with lived experience of barriers to civic participation and their representatives to shape the group's work and devise and trial solutions. Similarly, RNIB explained they have been working with the Scottish Government and various sight loss agencies to test potential accessible voting solutions for blind and partially sighted voters.

Other comments

While not directly addressing TVDs, two respondents felt it should be possible to vote digitally, and another two felt a postal vote, possibly allowing for a Braille voting card, would suffice.

Q14: Should the limit to the number of times one companion can support voters in casting their votes remain at two people per election, rise to five people per election, or be changed to another number?

Companions can help voters needing additional support when voting in a polling station, for example, navigating the room or understanding a ballot paper. Across all elections in the UK, a companion is only allowed to support two voters per election. However, there may be circumstances where this impedes the needs of voters - for example, multiple members of one family might need support but have only one relative available. The consultation explores a possible increase in the number of voters a companion can support in devolved elections and what level strikes the best balance between practical support and concerns over unduly influencing multiple voters.

	n=	% Remain at two people per election	% Rise to five people per election	% Be changed to another number
All answering	472	76	14	10
- Individuals	460	77	14	9
- Organisations	12	25	33	42

Views on this proposal differed between individuals and organisations. Over three quarters (77%) of individuals felt there should be no change to the two people per election who can be assisted by a companion. Among organisations, however, views were more mixed, with one third (33%) supporting an increase to five people, two fifths (42%) another number, and one quarter (25%) favouring the current guidelines.

Just under one in ten suggested another option in response to Q14. Most suggested a change to the number of people a companion can support. However, some raised other issues, such as concerns about coercion, integrity or the need to involve others.

Many of those who left a response at Q14 called for a change to ensure companions only support someone to cast one vote. The main reason was to minimise the risk of coercion. The second most prevalent suggestion, raised by several, was to limit it to between two and five voters.

A few felt the current arrangement of two could be retained but with an option to request an increase. One felt the companion should have an existing relationship through family or work, whilst another thought it should be limited to two outside a family.

The third most common theme, raised by some, was that companions could support an unlimited number of voters, or as many as was needed to enhance choice and flexibility.

A few respondents each suggested a companion could support more than five voters, and that more consideration is needed around how care home residents could vote using a companion. The Electoral Commission argued choice and flexibility would be improved by removing the requirement for a companion who is not a close relative of the voter to be a qualified elector, noting this would align with changes introduced by the UK Elections Act 2022.

Concerns about undue influence and integrity

Some respondents, primarily individuals, raised concerns about the potential for coercion or undue influence when companions could help more than one person to vote. Such fears led one to suggest no companions should be allowed. Some highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of voting arrangements and either recommended limiting the number of voters per companion or requiring further evidence about why a companion might need to support more than two people. A few called for safeguards to be in place, e.g. one individual felt requiring pre-registration of the companion using ID would assist investigations where abuse was suspected.

However, a few organisations were also concerned with safeguarding disabled people's right to vote, and recognised companions could help fulfil this right.

"Whilst we recognise concerns regarding undue influence, the focus should be on ensuring that individual voters are not prevented from exercising their voting rights. Consideration could be given to a requirement upon intending supporters/companions for more than (say) two voters to complete a simple and straightforward form disclosing this and explaining why it is considered appropriate that they should do so." - The Law Society of Scotland

Involving family members or paid carers

Some mentioned the need to continue to allow carers to be companions, mostly unpaid carers, to enable them to support a relative to vote. One individual felt a responsive system that makes exceptions for paid carers in specific roles should be adopted.

Q15: Should there be an option in the future to request a digital poll card instead of a paper poll card for Scottish elections?

	n=	%Yes	% No
All answering	482	56	44
- Individuals	473	55	45
- Organisations	9	89	11

While a small majority of individuals were in favour of the option of a digital poll card – 55% in favour and 45% opposed – organisations were much more supportive. Almost all (89%) of the nine organisations who answered Q15 indicated this should be an option.

Q16: What more could be done to improve the voting experience for individuals with particular accessibility needs or requirements?

Over a third of respondents answered Q16. Aside from those who felt current arrangements were satisfactory, themes emerged around the accessibility of polling stations, consideration of alternative voting options such as remote methods, better promotion of accessibility features and the need for greater consultation.

Continue existing arrangements

The most prevalent theme, mentioned by many and almost all individuals, was that the existing arrangements were suitable and did not need to be changed. Comments on this theme were typically brief, but where a reason was provided, it was often suggested that people with disabilities could use postal votes instead of voting in-person. Other views included that the RO was there to assist, that polling stations offered sufficient support currently, and that the Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments to be made.

Making greater use of postal voting was suggested by many individuals. Dumfries and Galloway Council called on the Scottish Government to consider how postal voting could be made more accessible, potentially by using different formats for people with specific needs. Otherwise, individuals' comments included encouraging further postal voting and that it is a good voting format for older people or those with additional needs.

"I have dyslexia which is why I do postal voting as it gives the time etc. I need to read and decide on my choices." - Individual

Improving accessibility at polling stations

The second most frequently mentioned theme was for more accessible venues and facilities to be used as polling stations. Wheelchair access was commonly highlighted as an issue, with calls for lower and wider booths as well as ramps and accessible buildings to accommodate wheelchairs. Other improvements to polling stations included quiet and rest areas, good lighting, hearing loops, use of personal adapted technology, e.g. phones or equipment, push button or Braille voting, audio or Braille signage and reserved parking spaces. West Lothian Council highlighted the need for resources to enable disabled people to alert polling station staff, such as alerters or temporary doorbells.

"To ensure consistency in approach, the Electoral Commission should have a role in providing advice to Returning Officers to identify what kind of support to provide, with input from disability charities and organisations." - West Lothian Council

Several respondents highlighted the need for in-person support at polling stations with calls for trained polling station staff to give information and support to disabled people. It was also noted some areas have volunteers who can accompany voters to polling stations. A few mentioned it should be possible for someone to take their carer or another person of their choice, also benefitting those experiencing anxiety as well as disabled people. RNIB Scotland welcomed the Electoral Commission's guidance to polling station staff on allowing voters to use mobile phones or other assistive devices.

These points were also raised in the event with disabled people's organisations, as were issues around the accessibility of the whole experience of voting. In particular, manifesto accessibility was raised by several participants and also by the young person's group. There were calls for easy read and Braille versions of manifestos, as well as manifestos in different formats such as YouTube videos. Another issue was that doorstep campaigning can be very difficult for neurodiverse individuals. It was noted that these aspects of voting were the responsibility of political parties and candidates, but that organisations administering elections can remind those involved of the need for accessibility.

"We ran a manifesto accessibility tracker and found that the majority of parties only delivered an easy read version well after the main manifesto was published, so straight away we see a democratic deficit that disabled people face and this has to change. Understand that it's up to political parties but where there's a will there's a way. Of course it's not just about easy read, there's plain English, Braille etc as well." – Disabled people's organisation

Digital or remote voting options

Many respondents, primarily individuals, called for more remote or digital voting methods. Voting online from home was felt to be an easier option for people with access issues. However, other remote voting suggestions included mobile units visiting community places such as supermarkets or residential centres, telephone voting and home visiting officers. However, one local authority cautioned against introducing multiple systems:

"It would be important that there was a move to digital with paper by exception rather than the option of running two systems. The logistics of using two methods would require to be assessed, including the potential additional workload." - Dumfries and Galloway Council

RNIB Scotland noted that while the Scottish and UK Governments have ruled out digital voting due to security concerns, high demand for this approach exists. They recommended further exploring how digital voting operates in other countries, which might help determine a way forward. They also described telephone voting used to assist blind or partially sighted people in Australia and Northern Ireland. Democracy Club also evidenced an appetite for digital solutions, noting their online polling station finder processes millions of postcode searches per year, leading them to support the proposal of digital polling cards.

"Democracy Club supports the introduction of digital poll cards for the reasons outlined in the consultation document. We would add that this proposal has the potential to be much more versatile than a physical poll card. For example, a digital poll card could be easily updated in case of last-minute changes to polling place location. Such a system also opens up the possibility of providing other information to electors, such as information about the ballot paper or voting system, enabling them to attend the polling station with greater confidence." - Democracy Club

Promotion of information about accessibility

Many respondents - a mix of organisations and individuals – highlighted the need to better promote the availability of accessible facilities, particularly at polling stations. Providing more information on other aspects of voting, such as explaining polling cards and how to register to vote, was also mentioned. A few suggested polling cards could contain accessibility information. Democracy Club noted that electronic polling cards could be used to provide information on voting and accessibility measures.

Around a third of those responding to this question called for wider promotion of the accessibility support available for voters. Some called for accessible information such as Braille and easy-read versions or for materials to be produced in minority languages. A few highlighted that as refugees tend to be housed in some known regions, information could be targeted in those areas. JustRight Scotland raised concerns about the remoteness of some of these areas and that a lack of a local support infrastructure for refugees can create barriers to civic participation.

Inclusion Scotland argued for more efforts to identify disabled people ahead of an election to inform adjustments that need to be made in different areas. Similarly, RNIB called on local authorities to update local registers of blind and partially sighted people, identify format preferences, and then send polling cards and other materials in that format ahead of the next elections.

Other suggestions included:

• Using more signage or having a person greeting voters at polling stations.
• Increasing awareness of apps available to assist voters in polling stations, supplemented by guidance on the use of mobile phones by voters.
• Using a resource such as online polling station finders to help disabled people to plan their visit and to prepare carers to act as companions.
• More specific guidance and training for polling station staff to ensure they can set up accessibility aids and equipment, as well as being able to provide information to disabled people and their companions.

Consult stakeholders

Several called for stakeholders to be asked for their views on accessibility. Respondents suggested engaging those with lived experience and their representatives, though the need to consult other groups was noted, for example, service providers as of an ongoing review of premises and Local Access Panels.

"We recommend that the Scottish Government works with parties, the Commission and other relevant organisations to produce good practice guidelines and accessibility standards for accessible election materials." - Electoral Commission

Other suggestions for improving accessibility

A range of other suggestions were made by several respondents, with half reiterating the importance of ensuring accessible facilities are available to meet the needs of voters. A few called for more accessible opening hours, such as voting on a Sunday, or over a longer time scale. Other suggestions included free transport, polling stations adapted for specific disabilities, linking to voters' electronic aids e.g. voice synthesiser and enabling greater access for those in temporary or long-term residential care.

Some respondents also felt party candidates should not be present at polling stations and some called for the use of voter ID.

Undue influence of voters

Although it is an offence to unduly influence an elector, the proposal is to clarify what constitutes undue influence to make existing legislation easier to understand and enforce.

Question 17: Do you agree that the offence of "undue influence" should be made easier to understand and enforce?

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering	478	89	11
- Individuals	466	89	11
- Organisations	12	92	8

Nine out of 10 respondents (89%) agreed with this proposal, with high levels of support among both individuals (89%) and organisations (92%).

Absent voting

At present, someone who has to unexpectedly travel for medical treatment and is unable to vote in person on polling day is entitled to ask if someone else can cast their vote on their behalf. This is known as an emergency proxy. Some people may need to be accompanied to their appointment due to their age or medical condition. However, under current rules, the person accompanying them could not ask for an emergency proxy.

The Scottish Government is proposing that emergency proxies should be made available to individuals who have to accompany someone to a medical appointment or treatment at short notice, where that travel prevents them voting at their normal polling place.

Question 18: Do you think that we should extend the right to emergency proxies to the companions of anyone who has to attend an unexpected medical appointment or treatment which would prevent them from voting at their normal voting place?

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering	480	61	39
- Individuals	469	61	39
- Organisations	11	100	0

All organisations who answered Q18 supported this proposal. Support was lower among individuals, but a majority of 61% were in favour.

Acting as a proxy

At a devolved election in Scotland, an individual cannot vote as proxy on behalf of more than two voters unless they are the spouse, civil partner, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild of the voter. The intention of this restriction is to avoid a single person being in the position of being able to vote as a proxy for a large number of people.

The UK Elections Act 2022 has limited the number of voters a person may act as a proxy to four people, no more than two of whom can be voters who are normally resident in the UK. This applies in UK Parliamentary elections in Scotland and all elections in England. They have also removed the exemption for acting as a proxy for close relatives. In practice, this means someone can be a proxy for up to two UK-based voters, or up to four overseas voters.

The Scottish Government does not propose changing the existing position in Scotland.

Question 19: Do you have any comments on changes to proxy voting in Scottish Parliament or Local Government elections?

One in five respondents answered Q19. Common themes included the potential for abuse, disagreement with the use of proxy voting, agreement with limiting proxy voting, proxy voting as a way to encourage voter engagement and alignment with UK elections.

Potential for abuse

The most prevalent theme was a concern about the potential for abuse of proxy voting. Around a third of these respondents highlighted general concerns about the potential for abuse or undue influence, with two mentioning risks of exploiting political positions. Some called for sufficient identity checks on proxy voters, while others called for greater regulation or tighter controls. The Electoral Commission noted safeguards already exist to prevent undue influence to appoint a proxy and felt an updated offence of undue influence would strengthen safeguards by acting as a deterrent. A small number called for an assessment of any proposals prior to their introduction.

"Proxy voting, in general, should not be prohibited or restricted, if the person being proxied is able to verify their vote went to the correct candidate. Finding a technical solution to this should be relatively uncomplicated". - Individual

Several respondents, all individuals, called for an end to proxy voting; this was the second most prevalent theme. Where a reason was given, respondents argued proxy voting should not be allowed due to perceptions it was open to abuse. Some other respondents suggested using postal voting instead of proxy voting.

Agreement with limitations

Several agreed that proxy voting should be limited. A few specifically agreed with the proposal that an individual should only act as a proxy for two voters who are not close relatives. Some felt there should be a limit, including that proxy voting should only occur in exceptional cases. Two mentioned specific groups that should be allowed to use a proxy including the armed forces, disabled people, housebound, or terminally ill people.

Maintain existing proxy voting arrangements

The existing proxy arrangements were considered sufficient by some respondents. Two specifically commented they disagreed with the proposal to extend proxy arrangements to cover medical emergencies. One felt a proxy could be used if a person had Power of Attorney or similar, whilst the other believed the person should focus on treatment rather than voting. Both felt the number of such cases would be minimal, e.g. due to the short period covered by polling station opening hours.

The Electoral Commission cautioned that limiting how many family members for whom a voter may act as a proxy could disadvantage some people, noting their 2014 review of electoral fraud did not identify public support for further restrictions on proxy voting.

Clarification and alignment of proxy rules

Some respondents, mainly organisations, called for alignment with the UK parliamentary elections, and highlighted the likelihood of voter confusion should the Scottish proxy system differ from the UK. A few organisations highlighted the potential for voter confusion because the UK has removed the exemption for close relatives. They argued that this would create administrative challenges for the ERO and RO and may unintentionally disenfranchise voters at a UK Parliamentary poll. However, the Electoral Commission stated they would ensure clear information is available to voters so they can easily understand the different rules for reserved and devolved Scottish Elections.

"The proxy or the elector may be unclear which elections they are eligible for. Currently, the rules are aligned, and electors tend to appoint the same person to be their proxy in all elections. When the changes to the proxy rules for UK elections come into force, this won't be possible in all cases. The vast majority of electors are either British or Commonwealth citizens, and the diverging approaches will impact them rather than the minority of electors, such as Overseas Electors or Foreign Nationals who are only eligible to vote in the UK or Scottish Elections. It is in the interest of the electors that rules around absent vote applications are aligned to save the elector having to navigate differing application rules for differing elections." - Scottish Assessors Association

Some proposed additional rules to include, or called for clarification of rules. A few individuals suggested that applying for proxy voting should be possible until the final hour of voting day. One noted the existing rules seemed appropriate but felt rare election fraud cases stemmed from confusion over proxy rules, whilst another felt the undue influence offence should be easier to understand and enforce and that:

"There is a need for modernisation of dated languages and rules, and a single set of electoral offences should be set out in primary legislation which should apply to all elections." - Returning Officer

Proxy voting can enhance civic participation

Some respondents welcomed actions taken to ease voter engagement and felt proxy voting could facilitate this. One Returning Officer felt emergency proxies should be extended to the companions of anyone who has to attend an unexpected medical appointment or treatment which would prevent them from voting at their regular voting place.

"These situations can be upsetting for those accompanying a person because of a medical emergency to discover that they are not able to appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf unlike the patient who is able to appoint a proxy". - Scottish Assessors Association

Postal ballot packs

Anyone who has a postal ballot can return the completed postal ballot pack to the Returning Officer by post or hand it into a polling station in person or by asking someone to hand it in on their behalf. There is currently no restriction in Scottish Parliament and local elections on the number of postal ballot packs which any individual can hand into a polling station. The UK Elections Act 2022 has made changes to restrict the number of postal ballot packs which can be handed into a polling station by an individual for UK Parliament elections. That Act has also made it an offence for political campaigners to handle postal voting documents for UK Parliament elections unless it forms part of their employment or they are doing so on behalf of a family member.

The Scottish Government is of the view that the personal identifier checks are sufficient to confirm that a postal ballot has been completed by the correct voter. There are no proposals to place any restrictions on the number of ballot papers which an individual may hand in at a polling station at devolved Scottish elections or introduce any restrictions on the handling of postal votes by political campaigners.

Question 20: Do you have any comments on the handing in postal ballots?

Around one quarter answered Q20. Comments covered many aspects of postal ballots rather than focusing specifically on handing in. Themes included the need for more robust safeguards, concerns about corruption or fraud, and on the handling of postal votes.

Safeguarding postal votes

Many individuals and the Electoral Commission highlighted the issue of postal voting safeguards. Around half of the individuals commenting on this theme suggested what could usefully be in place, and some others commented on security issues or made a broad request for more robust controls. The Electoral Commission also cited public concerns with postal ballots, indicating that a 2022 Public Opinion tracker found that one in five believe it is unsafe from fraud and abuse. As a result, they argued:

"Strengthening some safeguards protecting postal voting could improve voter trust and confidence in the system and address perceptions that electoral fraud or inappropriate activity is taking place." - Electoral Commission

Respondents highlighted specific aspects of the process where safeguards could be enhanced, believing these would address security concerns. They included: keeping postal votes in a sealed box until after voting ends; comparing block submissions, e.g. postal votes from the same household to see if suspicious activity can be identified; verifying postal ballots by at least two individuals; checking the ID of those requesting a postal vote; using independent electoral officers to vet those handling postal ballots; and only allowing the individual to hand in a postal vote. However, issues with signature verification were noted in the event with disabled people's organisations and by About Dementia, Age Scotland. They noted that the issue of signature mismatch could disproportionately affect older people or those with health conditions or disabilities whose signature could change since registering for a postal vote.

Other comments were that the Royal Mail should continue to be used and to introduce secure drop-off points on Council premises. A few mentioned difficulties knowing if postal votes were received, e.g., due to lost mail, leading to calls for email confirmation or a postal tracking code that could be used to check online if they had been received.

One respondent who noted the system was relatively secure still recommended a transparent method of demonstrating security levels, echoing the sentiment for more efforts to assure the public about safeguards highlighted above from the Electoral Commission. A few in this theme also highlighted governance issues, with calls for greater transparency and a legal framework, though these comments were not detailed.

Concerns about potential abuse

The second most prevalent theme, evident in many comments from individuals, was the potential for abuse of the postal voting system. There was some overlap with the theme above, i.e. comments about safeguards were often made due to concerns about the potential for vote manipulation or corruption. Some in this theme felt postal voting had become too prevalent and should be limited (see later in this section). Others raised concerns about holiday homeowners or family members fraudulently voting on behalf of others. As a result, some recommended only allowing individuals to hand in votes.

Handling and counting postal votes

Another theme raised by several respondents was postal vote counting at polling stations. Overall, respondents felt ballot boxes should only be opened once polls closed, that counting postal votes should be done within each constituency, and that counting be well monitored with a balance of political observers. Other suggestions included having extra officers to verify the count and using independent security to guard sealed ballot boxes.

"Having looked at the election procedure, the main "grey area" that I can observe for any electoral interference to occur is with regard to the pick-up, transportation and delivery of ballot boxes to counting halls for counting." - Individual

Existing arrangements are suitable

Several respondents felt the current arrangements were adequate or working well and did not need further amendment. One Returning Officer agreed with the proposal not to limit the number of ballot papers an individual could return. Similarly, the AEA and the Electoral Commission highlighted that restricting the number of postal ballots that could be returned to a polling station could create practical difficulties in enforcing limits or barriers for some who need assistance.

"For example, friends or neighbours of voters would not be allowed to provide support by handing in postal votes, and people may be prevented from returning postal votes for family members. In any case, postal votes that are handed in at polling stations must still go through the same security checks as those returned through the postal service before they can be included in the count." - Electoral Commission

Limit or prevent the use of postal votes

Several individuals felt postal ballots should only be used in limited or exceptional circumstances. Respondents provided little detail other than mentioning groups who could be eligible, including people who cannot visit a polling station, those with disabilities or a medical certificate, those experiencing bereavement and those in the armed forces.

A similar proportion of individuals called for an end to postal voting. Where a reason was given, this was due to perceptions of fraudulent use.

Limit the number of postal votes handed into polling stations

A restriction on the number of postal ballots that can be handed into a polling station was raised by several respondents. The most common suggestions were to limit it to the person using the postal ballot or a general call to limit votes without specifying the number. One felt a restriction of two ballots handed in should be introduced. Again, where a reason was given, limits were recommended to minimise the potential for undue influence.

Other suggestions

A small number recommended that political campaigners be unable to hand in postal votes, highlighting that this would align with UK arrangements under the UK Elections Act 2022. One individual felt an exception would be if the campaigner was returning a postal ballot for a family member. The Electoral Commission felt introducing this restriction would increase public trust and alleviate concerns about potential abuse.

"This change could improve voter trust and address concerns around the potential for inappropriate activity taking place when postal ballot packs are handled. This formalises a key part of the 'best practice' approach set out in our guidance and our voluntary Code of Conduct for campaigners for more than 15 years. The Code was developed and agreed with political parties, but not all campaigners are aware of or actively comply with it. We would welcome a discussion with the Scottish Government on how similar provisions could work for devolved elections in Scotland." – Electoral Commission

A few also commented positively on the ability to use postal ballots.

Voting rights

Views were sought on whether certain persons detained in hospitals on mental health grounds related to criminal justice should continue to be denied voting rights in Scottish devolved elections. Such people might be detained where they have been found to not be criminally responsible as a result of a mental disorder; other people may have been found unfit to stand trial.

Question 21: Should voting rights in Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections be extended to some or all persons detained on mental health grounds related to criminal justice?

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering	476	20	80
- Individuals	470	19	81
- Organisations	6	100	0

There were marked differences in views on this proposal. All organisations who expressed a view were in favour. However, four fifths of individuals (81%) were against extending voting rights to this group.

Question 22. Do you have any additional comments on voting rights for persons detained on mental health grounds related to criminal justice?

Do not extend voting rights

The most prevalent theme among the quarter of respondents who answered Q22 was that voting rights should not be extended to people detained on mental health grounds related to criminal justice. Many held this view, and reflecting Q21, all were individuals. Many felt the right to vote should be removed from prisoners or those who break the law. A few argued voting is a privilege that should not be extended to those who break a social contract or are not "productive" members of society. Others suggested voting should be forfeited by those who have committed a crime as part of their punishment.

Not having the mental capacity to take decisions was the second most prevalent theme, again raised by many individuals. it was apparent from answers that respondents were unclear those with mental incapacity already have voting rights as it was commonly felt that if someone is deemed incapable of making decisions, this should extend to voting, and they should not be able to vote.

"If you are detained on mental health grounds, then courts have decided you cannot be accountable for your actions, so no voting should be allowed." - Individual

Singular comments included: that medication for mental illness could cause cognitive issues; others with mental incapacity, such as dementia, should also not be able to vote; and those with mental health issues retaining mental capacity should be able to vote.

Support for extending voting rights

Other respondents felt that voting rights should be extended to people within the criminal justice system who are detained in hospitals on mental health grounds. The prevailing view was that every citizen should have the right to vote in a democratic society, with no exceptions. A small number highlighted that this group should have the right to vote to ensure their voice is heard. A few organisations qualified how voting rights could be extended to this group. Engender supported extension in line with the rights of prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less. The Law Society of Scotland suggested entitlement should be on the same basis as persons detained on mental health grounds under civil orders and drew a helpful distinction between this group and people in prison:

"Whilst we recognise that this may lead to a difference in treatment between those detained in prison and those detained in hospital, a forensic order is not intended as a punishment but as a means of providing the effective medical treatment and support the individual requires. A prison sentence, and a restriction of liberty as a result of a forensic order, are not directly comparable." - The Law Society of Scotland

Other concerns

Several individuals expressed negative views about extending voting rights to this group. The main reasons were related to either concern about the potential for undue influence or beliefs that voting would not be a priority for the person or could cause them stress.

"Absolutely not. As a professional in this field, I can assure you, voting is the last thing on their mind." - Individual

It depends on the circumstances

Several respondents felt voting rights could be extended depending on the circumstances, such as the extent of mental capacity or criminal intent. A small number felt clinicians should determine the capacity to vote, while a few felt it should be done on a case-by-case basis. A few highlighted that a blanket ban should not exist, and one individual argued that the Scottish Government should take steps to apply the 2005 European Convention on Human Rights ruling that specified that a blanket ban on preventing prisoners from voting breached Article 3 of Protocol No 1 of the ECHR.

Some specific suggestions about which individuals in this group should be able to vote were received, for instance, a Returning Officer felt voting rights should not be extended to persons subject to hospital directions. One individual felt people could vote if three independent psychiatrists had verified their mental capacity. COSLA acknowledged the complexity involved in extending voting rights and felt it required further detailed consideration, particularly on applying a 12-month threshold.

Consultation and guidance

Clarification was sought on who the changes would apply to, e.g., whether they include persons subject to hospital directions. The Electoral Commission argued for consideration of how this audience would access election information, register and vote, noting processes should:

"… be prescribed in law and take into account the specific challenges that would be faced by these individuals in exercising their right to vote, building on the lessons learned around the enfranchisement of prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less. This should include how EROs would identify and make contact with potentially eligible individuals to determine their eligibility and how such individuals should receive and return any absent votes." - Electoral Commission

COSLA suggested further consultation with relevant partners and professional associations, such as Community Justice Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Reform Society. They also highlighted the need for coordination with the Scottish Government's anticipated response to the Scottish Mental Health Law Review Final Report.

Question 23: Should voting rights in Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections be extended to all people seeking asylum in Scotland?

Asylum seekers are now the main group of foreign nationals aged 16 or over living in Scotland without voting rights. The Scottish Government and Scottish Green Party - Shared Policy Programme (2021) expressed a shared ambition to extend voting to asylum seekers living in Scotland, but recognised "the difficulty in achieving that within the current asylum system which would require UK Government cooperation."

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering (%)	482	22	78
- Individuals	474	21	79
- Organisations	8	75	25

Mixed views were again expressed about extending voting rights to people seeking asylum in Scotland. Three quarters of organisations (75%) were in favour, but four fifths of individuals (79%) were against.

Six respondents gave further comments on Q23 in their response to Q24. One was a joint response from: Scottish Refugee Council The VOICES Network and Refugees for Justice, JustRight Scotland and Maryhill Integration Network.

These organisations argued that people seeking asylum should be given voting rights, and note the Scottish Government's New Scots: Refugee Integration Strategy 2018-2022 states integration starts from the first day of arriving in Scotland. They argue that people living in Scotland and subject to its policies should have a right to vote and representation. These respondents also suggested solutions to practical barriers such as use of:

• Tenancy agreements from relevant housing providers for those residing in the Home Office's accommodation as proof of address.
• Bail 201 form and ARC ID from the Home Office to prove asylum seekers status.
• In cases involving loss of eligibility to vote at the point of a final refusal of an asylum claim that cannot be appealed, follow the same procedure that applies to those with limited leave to remain that has expired.

"As long as an individual has an asylum claim that has not been finally determined, they are residing here legally and should have access to their civic rights, especially in consideration of the asylum backlog and the fact that people are now currently forced to spend many years in the asylum system without an initial decision." - Joint organisational response

Two individuals and a Returning Officer commented that voting rights should not be extended to those seeking asylum. The Returning Officer argued against doing so because it would be highly challenging for EROs to maintain the integrity of the voting register as ongoing individual asylum decisions were made.

UK Elections Act implications

The UK Elections Act 2022 made a wide range of changes to elections to the UK Parliament. This includes a requirement for voters to prove their identity in voting, changes to postal voting and changes in relation to people living overseas.

While the Scottish Government has no intention to introduce ID requirements for devolved Scottish elections, it is concerned that the new voter ID requirements for UK Parliament elections will confuse voters and raise barriers to voting in Scottish devolved elections. Confusion could arise when a voter is required to have ID for a UK Parliament election but not for devolved Scottish elections, particularly at any by-elections held on the same day.

On postal voting, the UK Elections Act 2022 means that voters will no longer be able to make one application for a postal vote in all elections. They will have to apply every three years for a postal vote for UK Parliament elections but it will continue to be possible to refresh their signature every five years for devolved elections.

Question 24: What issues do you think that the changes in the Elections Act 2022 to introduce voter ID and change postal vote renewals raise for elections held in Scotland?

The half of respondents answering Q24 raised a range of views including those both for and against the use of voter ID, and potential challenges with postal voting proposals.

ID requirements leading to disenfranchisement

Many respondents were concerned that compulsory voter ID could create a barrier to voting or affect voter turnout among the most marginalised in society. Respondents argued that ID was not required because incidences of voting fraud were very rare and that requiring ID was a disproportionate solution, or they wished to maximise voter take-up and avoid creating further barriers to participation.

"Creating obstacles so that it is harder for voters to acquire postal ballots will serve to further impede democratic participation and therefore should be avoided." - Individual

Respondents frequently highlighted that some groups are less likely to have approved forms of ID, that ID should be provided free of charge and that the need to have ID will reduce voter participation. Groups likely to be disproportionately affected included young people, those with visual impairments, those affected by financial insecurity, foreign nationals and older people. RNIB highlighted that 13% of blind and partially sighted people have no acceptable form of ID. It was noted that someone with ID may still have issues:

"People may turn out to a polling place, and even if they have ID, may not be carrying it at the time. Given the problem of low turnout mentioned earlier in this consultation, any additional barriers to voting are likely to reduce turnout further." - Individual

Many respondents argued that the introduction of voter ID for reserved elections could be seen as voter suppression. In other words, requiring voter ID was seen as a way of reducing voting amongst the most marginalised in society, benefiting political parties that were less likely to receive their vote.

"The new Voter ID laws are incredibly confusing on purpose. It is clearly nothing more than a scheme by the UK Tory Government to purposefully confound and impede voters from poorer backgrounds, who do not necessarily have all the available ID." - Individual

Support for voter ID

Conversely, the second most prevalent view was that many individuals, supported the proposal to introduce voter ID requirements. It was commonly felt that many people already have ID and have to produce this for banking purposes, employment, collecting parcels from the Post Office and member voting at political party conferences. Respondents appeared unclear the use of existing photo ID's such as passports was allowed as other suggestions included using existing ID as proof, using photo ID and introducing digital or voluntary ID.

"No issue. ID is a great idea. Qualifies your identity and ability to vote." - Individual

Many individuals argued that introducing voter ID could reduce abuse. There was a perception that it is currently too easy to vote and could result in voter fraud, so increased security was beneficial.

"Anyone can just give a name or hand over a card; therefore, anyone could steal that vote. I think having proper ID to vote makes lots of sense." - Individual

Potential for confusion

The consultation paper noted that different arrangements between Scotland and the rest of the UK could confuse voters, and this view was endorsed by many respondents. However, one noted extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland had been done successfully.

If different arrangements exist in the UK, some organisations called for the introduction of a presumption that an election under the different rules would never be held on the same day. Due to the potential for confusion and increased complexity, many favoured aligning arrangements across the UK (see Q25). Several respondents called for extensive promotion to ensure people are made aware of any rule changes. The Electoral Commission highlighted its public awareness campaign on voter ID requirements and how it plans to deploy this in Scotland ahead of a UK Parliament general election.

Comments on postal voting changes

Many respondents also commented on postal vote renewals. Some felt it made sense to have postal vote renewals every three years. Reasons given included a need to align with the UK to avoid voter confusion which could result in voters losing their postal vote unexpectedly, and to ensure voter information remained up to date. Similarly, a few other respondents saw no issues with the UK arrangements being introduced in Scotland.

COSLA, while also calling for alignment with the UK, preferred a five-year renewal period across both devolved and reserved elections to minimise the administrative impact on voters. The AEA further highlighted such challenges:

"However, the Elections Act has introduced further complexities – namely the distinction between reapply and refresh; the requirement to provide a national insurance number when reapplying for reserved polls; and the decision to offer online postal vote applications for reserved polls." - Association of Electoral Administrators

A few individuals advocated a once-only application, or as few applications as possible.

Administrative challenges

Concerns about the impact of the proposals on administrative systems were raised by several individuals and organisations. Most frequently mentioned was the impact on staff working in more complex environments, including dealing with dissatisfied or confused voters at polling stations. A few highlighted that making changes, mainly introducing an ID card, would incur unnecessary costs. Specific administrative burdens might include:

• Updating ERO's Electoral Management Software to accommodate any changes.
• Increased workloads for EROs and training for polling station staff.
• Local authorities potentially maintaining two separate registers of postal voters.

Some respondents also highlighted the potential impact on polling staff recruitment and retention arising from having to police the requirement to show ID.

"They move from peers administering an election to officials who must determine the validity of someone's identification papers. This is a very different and more complex job and one that may be more difficult to staff. There is also concern around the potential risk to polling staff should they be required to prevent individuals from voting as a result of failed ID checks."- EMB

The EMB and the Association of Electoral Administrators also noted that divergent rules between Scotland and the rest of the UK had been subject to much discussion among Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Teams who have sought answers to numerous challenges created due to recent changes to minimise any potential confusion.

Question 25: Should there be a presumption against a Scottish devolved election being held on the same day as a UK Parliament election (for example, a UK Parliament by-election on the same day as a national Scottish Parliament election)?

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering	481	51	49
- Individuals	469	49	51
- Organisations	12	100	0

All organisations who answered Q12 agreed with the proposed presumption against a Scottish devolved election being held on the same day as a UK Parliament election. Individuals were evenly split in their views with 49% in favour and 51% opposed.