Clean electoral rolls are a must, but must not be weaponised by state

Clean electoral rolls are a must, but must not be weaponised by state

President Donald Trump’s appreciation of India’s election mechanism has put the spotlight on a highly divisive debate over election integrity in the two democracies. Mr. Trump is pushing for an SIR-like exercise in the U.S., but its highly federalised electoral process is governed by fragmented rules and politics that resist the idea. His curious social media post citing India’s Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, as having wondered how the U.S. could conduct elections without a valid photo identity, has renewed concerns over election integrity in both the U.S. and India. While no one can disagree that the process should be fair and transparent, the agreement ends there. Partisan politics in both countries have fostered political mistrust, leading election losers to repeatedly question electoral integrity. The liberal and progressive strands, and the conservative and nativist strands in both countries, want to purify and streamline the electoral rolls and the processes, but in different and often contradictory ways. India and the U.S. could lead a shared democratic agenda on election rules, but only after restoring trust and integrity in their electoral processes.

India’s nationalised election administration system has largely worked well, though it now faces a crisis of legitimacy. The U.S.’s decentralised system leaves too many loopholes in the process of enrolment and voting, and it could benefit from a more robust national framework like the ECI’s. The expanded Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act was passed in February and is pending in the Senate. The Constitution grants each State its own methods: “...but Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations”, unlike the Indian Constitution, which establishes the ECI as a constitutional body. Though there is no ambiguity in existing law either in the U.S. or in India that only citizens may register and vote, the process of ensuring this has become hugely controversial in both countries. The proposed federal law would require proof of citizenship for voter registration and photo ID for voting. In India, the SIR is trying to sneak in this requirement without transparency, adequate consultation or sufficient time. The very fact that SIR is meant to be conducted only once in 20 years means it should be carried out carefully and inclusively. While ruling dispensations in both countries think that the election process is too permissive and allows foreigners to obtain voting rights, their opponents point to systematic and premeditated efforts to target social groups in the name of election integrity. What is needed is an acceptance that clean electoral rolls of citizens, and voting with photo ID, are elementary requirements of a fair process. In both countries, the state must not selectively weaponise these requirements against those not in power.