I, a voter who wanted to take part in the parliamentary elections, was forced to visit the polling place at the same time as the national referendum. Not only do I not want to answer referendum questions, I do not want – and as a conscious citizen, I have the right to – that the consequence of my vote is binding
It will be binding erstwhile more than half of those entitled to vote participate. What can I do and what should I do if I am convinced that the authors of referendum questions have instrumentally utilized an crucial democratic institution to improve their position in parliamentary elections and unlimited backing of the referendum run budget? What can I do and what should I do erstwhile I am convinced that intelligence and a sense of decency – mine and many of my fellow citizens – have been offended one more time in managing the referendum?
I want to vote against the binding power of the national referendum on October 15. I'm allowed, right?
Let us begin by describing the rules governing the establishment of the result of the referendum, in peculiar whether this consequence is binding. In this case, it is crucial to note that a valid or invalid voice is not the same as a valid or invalid card.
The voters in the referendum answer the question posed by putting the "x" sign in the box, alongside the affirmative "Yes" or the negative "No" answer, respectively. If the ‘x’ sign is placed on the ballot card in both boxes or the ‘x’ sign is not placed in any of the boxes, the voice shall be invalid. Adding additional questions or options to the ballot card or making another notes outside the box does not affect the validity of the vote (Article 21 of the National referendum Act).
On the another hand, only ballots another than those officially fixed or unattached by the seal of the peripheral commission are not crucial (Article 23). Any card officially fixed and stamped by a committee shall be valid, regardless of the vote it contains.
However, the number of people who took part in the referendum, and so whether the result of the referendum is binding, is determined not on the basis of the number of valid votes but on the basis of the number of valid cards taken out of the urn (Article 22(4)). With 1 exception, the cards drawn from the ballot box shall not be taken into account entirely (Article 22(5)). Therefore, the cards which are only partially or otherwise damaged, if they are officially fixed cards bearing the seal of the committee, stay valid, depending on the quantities which depend on the binding force of the referendum. It seems that the forewords are besides important. After all, the Act does not deprive them of the value of ‘importance’, but prohibits them only from being taken into account erstwhile counting crucial cards taken out of the urn to establish attendance in the referendum.
Here we decision on to the controversial question of legal assessment of demolition or card harm within the meaning of the penal code. Article 248(3) of the Criminal Code provides that those who, in connection with a referendum, destroy, damage, conceal, alter or counterfeit referendal documents, are to be punished. Let us leave aside the issue of altering or falsifying referendum documents, which we are not curious in.
Hiding a paper in criminal law is placing it in a place another than that in which it is to be located in order to be out of the scope of persons entitled to usage it or entitled to usage it properly. This is where the paper is placed by the offender in a place where the rightholder does not know or to which he does not have access or has difficulty having access. Behavior by downloading a card with mention questions and then giving up the vote is not hiding it. The position of the referendum card, like the electoral card, since its issue to the rightholder, is unique. The only individual entitled to hold a card is the 1 with the card issued. It is so impossible for him to commit a crime by hiding a card from himself. There is no reason for any right to usage a referendum card or to usage it at that time to others. There are no another "authorised" people.
Nor is it a crime to destruct or harm a referendum card by a individual who, as entitled to participate in a referendum, has issued specified a card. From the minute the card is collected, only this individual is entitled to hold the card in any way, but to retreat it to another individual before the end of the vote, which in a moment. Participation in a referendum is simply a right, not a duty. We can make a decision not to participate in the referendum for different reasons and at any time, as long as our card does not end up in the urn. The National referendum Act does not supply either for an order or for a return of the card issued to and utilized by the rightholder. The only way to safely resign from participating in a referendum is to destruct it, or to take it, even if no 1 else uses it.
The content of Article 248(5) of the Criminal Code besides supports the correctness of specified arguments. This is the only punishment provision that is addressed straight to the individual entitled to vote. It prohibits the ‘revocation’ of an unused ballot card to another individual before the end of the vote or the receipt of specified a card from another individual for usage in the vote. “Depart” means giving up something in someone’s favor, giving up someone’s right to something. No another conduct by a individual entitled to vote with a card in his hand shall be prohibited by criminal law.
The National referendum Act does not supply for the equivalent of Article 497a of the Electoral Code, which states that anyone who, on election day, raises a ballot outside the electoral establishment or specified a card outside the electoral establishment shall accept or hold, without being entitled, a penalty. This electoral code regulation applies only to elections, not a referendum. The referendum Act contains its own criminal rules, and the usage of analogues for the exhaustion of the prohibited acts only due to the anticipation of appropriate application of the electoral code provisions to the degree not regulated by the national referendum law would be an unacceptable violation of the basic principles of criminal law. The issue of analogy in criminal law goes beyond the framework of this text and does not seem to be crucial. It is crucial that this provision besides mentions the behaviour of ‘not being entitled to do so’, taken without authority.
The task of criminal law is to defend the integrity and regularity of the campaign, the vote and the result of the referendum, but not the desired outcome. What I will do as a voter with my referendum card at a time erstwhile it is at my sole disposal and is only an emanation of my right – it is only my business. For this short time, I am the sovereign. My right to vote is besides the right to proceed with the card in a way that expresses not only my attitude to referenda questions but besides to the thought of this peculiar referendum.
A card foreclosed only in part or otherwise damaged if it is an officially established card bearing the seal of the committee and not completely broken is an crucial card. The amount of crucial cards taken out of the urn depends on the binding power of the referendum. In its content, the card besides contains the voice of the rightholder. crucial or not, but voice. The forecard in its entirety and thrown into the urn besides contains specified a voice. The vote of the rightholder against the binding result of the referendum. A vote in a referendum – inactive not yet – cannot be a crime.
So how can I behave on October 15, not wanting to legitimize a referendum?
1. I can refuse to accept a referendum card and guarantee that my refusal is documented. That'll be my voice.
2. I can, after I've received the referendum card, get through it all and throw it in the urn. That'll be my voice too.
3. I can also, after receiving the referendum card, take it out of the polling place and out of the polling place to have it, remembering only not to give it to another individual before the vote is over. And in that case, it will be my voice. However, it should be remembered that downloading the card and not throwing it in the urn (and consequently the difference between the number of cards issued and the cards taken out of the urn) may give the parent the temptation to ‘split’ crucial cards containing ‘right’ voices.
And by the way, my right to deal with my referendum card in my chosen way protects the fundamental rule of vote secrecy. I am not going to commit a crime, but 1 who violates the rules on the secrecy of the vote, contrary to my will to get acquainted with the content of my vote (Article 251 of the Criminal Code).
The text was posted on the blog Radek Bashuk. That's how I see it...
