Secret ballot

NUTLEY BOY

If I vote in an Irish general election my vote is by way of secret ballot.
Does that mean that I never have an obligation to reveal how I voted ?

Is it the same if I vote in ;

1. A Senate election,
2. Local elections &
3. A referendum.

Grolschevik

You never have an obligation to reveal.

But you don't have an obligation never to reveal.

The secrecy of the ballot is designed to ensure that one cannot be compelled or bribed or threatened to vote in a particular way. After that act of secret voting, there is absolutely no evidence to identify how you as an individual chose to vote. Even if you chose tell someone, from their perspective, you could easily be lying.

Victor

Grolschevik wrote: »

But you don't have an obligation never to reveal.

Note that there is legislation in place to prevent certain acts around revealing the ballot, e.g. it is forbidden to take photographs of it.

UrbanVixen

Can I dig this thread up again please.

On reading the constitution I see specific reference to a secret ballot for ;

1. General elections,
2. Senate elections,
3. Presidential elections.

In relation to a referendum I cannot see any reference to a secret ballot or I have missed something.

Is a referendum vote subject to secret ballot ? If so, where is the authority for that ?

Robbo

UrbanVixen wrote: »

Can I dig this thread up again please.

On reading the constitution I see specific reference to a secret ballot for ;

1. General elections,
2. Senate elections,
3. Presidential elections.

In relation to a referendum I cannot see any reference to a secret ballot or I have missed something.

Is a referendum vote subject to secret ballot ? If so, where is the authority for that ?

The Referendum Act, 1994 makes reference to maintaining the secrecy of the ballot. There's also references to preserving the secrecy of the ballot on the Electoral Act, 1992.

Carawaystick

I'd imagine the Supremes would find it to be an implicit right to privacy, if someone tried to compell you

Peregrinus

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'd imagine the Supremes would find it to be an implicit right to privacy, if someone tried to compell you

I don't think they'd need to find any implied right. There are various provisions in the Electoral Acts designed to protect the secrecy of the ballot in Dail Elections, and by sections 6 and 32 of the Referendum Act those provisions apply to referenda also.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think they'd need to find any implied right. There are various provisions in the Electoral Acts designed to protect the secrecy of the ballot in Dail Elections, and by sections 6 and 32 of the Referendum Act those provisions apply to referenda also.

I think Caraway meant that if the Oireachtas ever tried to pass a law making it mandatory for people to vote publicly on a referendum that the Supreme Court would likely find there to be an implicit right to a secret ballot under the right to privacy and deem such a law unconstitutional.

coylemj

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Caraway meant that if the Oireachtas ever tried to pass a law making it mandatory for people to vote publicly on a referendum that the Supreme Court would likely find there to be an implicit right to a secret ballot under the right to privacy and deem such a law unconstitutional.

What you've described is a scenario where a specific provision in the constitution that applies to defined situations could be extended by the SC to other situations not covered by the constitution.

If the constitution could say so (secret ballot in referendums) but doesn't, why should the SC start inserting new provisions into the constitution?

I'm thinking here of the SC judgement which gave journalists the right to withhold information about their sources, something that now allows journalists to treat statutory inquiries with barely-disguised contempt.

hullaballoo

Those pesky old ideals of fair procedure. Tsk.

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

What you've described is a scenario where a specific provision in the constitution that applies to defined situations could be extended by the SC to other situations not covered by the constitution.

If the constitution could say so (secret ballot in referendums) but doesn't, why should the SC start inserting new provisions into the constitution?

I'm thinking here of the SC judgement which gave journalists the right to withhold information about their sources, something that now allows journalists to treat statutory inquiries with barely-disguised contempt.

Just to be clear: I wasn't making that argument. I was clarifying an argument made by someone else.