Estonian election committee rejects complaints over presidential vote

Estonia’s National Electoral Committee rejected complaints over the parliamentary round of the presidential election, including objections to a cable tie used to seal the ballot box, voting with a child present and ballots marked with a check mark, ERR reported.

Arko Okk claimed that the requirement to seal the ballot box had been breached because a cable tie was used to close it. He called for the election result to be annulled, the vote to be declared invalid and a new election to be held.

Deputy committee chair Airi Mikli said the broadcast had created the impression that the box was secured with a cable tie, but that the device was actually a numbered seal manufactured for that purpose and used in every election.

Committee member Gert Uiboaed said the same seals had also been used in elections for the parliament’s board and over a long period. He said the method of sealing had therefore been in use for a long time, and added that Okk did not have the right to file a complaint.

Dilaila Nahkur-Tammiksaar agreed, saying the law did not specify a particular method of sealing the ballot box. Technology and available options change over time, she said, so not every detail can be set out in legislation.

Teet Raidma said the device was a numbered seal, which everyone could verify. The ballot box had not left the public area or the view of those present.

The committee decided not to consider Okk’s complaint and found that the relevant procedures had been checked and followed correctly.

Questions over voting with a child

Kalmer Kiidma raised questions about the organisation of the presidential election and the determination of the voting result. His submission addressed the presence of a child in the voting booth, members of parliament revealing their choices, the acceptance of a ballot marked with a so-called check mark, the closing of the ballot box and the television broadcast.

Committee chair Ingrid Kullerkann said the submission should not be treated as a complaint but as a request for clarification. The committee’s meeting chair agreed. Kullerkann said the electoral committee would respond to Kiidma on its behalf.

Committee accepts check mark as a cross

Andres Nadel challenged the decision to count a ballot marked with a so-called check mark as a valid vote for a presidential candidate. In his view, only a ballot marked with a cross could be considered valid. He asked for all ballots to be checked again, for ballots that did not meet the requirements to be declared invalid, for the result to be annulled and for a new round of voting to be held.

Mikli said the submission concerned the procedure for determining the voting result, but under the Presidential Election Act only a member of parliament has the right to file a complaint. As Nadel is not a member of parliament, he did not have that right and the submission should not be considered on its merits.

She added that she would nevertheless be willing to discuss more broadly whether a so-called check mark could be regarded as a cross. Mikli said the law requires a member of parliament to express their choice by making a cross after the candidate’s name, but does not define what a cross means.

In geometry, intersecting lines are lines that meet at a right angle, Mikli said. In her view, a check mark could reasonably be treated as an unfinished cross formed by two straight lines. If the complaint had been filed by a person entitled to do so, the committee would have counted such a check mark as a cross.

Nahkur-Tammiksaar added that check marks had also been counted as crosses in the past. A question mark in the box, rather than a check mark, would be more likely to raise doubts about the clarity of the voter’s intention.