Parliamentary Ombudsman ordered police to investigate the actions of election authorities in parliamentary elections but did not bring charges

Parliamentary Ombudsman ordered police to investigate the actions of election authorities in parliamentary elections but did not bring charges
Complaints filed by private individuals requesting the Ombudsman to investigate the lawfulness of the actions of election officials at an advance polling station in Jyväskylä and the actions of the election board on the actual election day in Hämeenlinna led to a pre-trial investigation ordered by Petri Jääskeläinen (Parliamentary Ombudsman) and further to consideration of charges. 

In Jyväskylä, the matter concerned the fact that under the Election Act and according to the regulations issued by the Ministry of Justice based on the Act, voters have to themselves close the ballot envelope in advance voting. However, a practice in which the election official closed the envelope on behalf of the voter was followed in Jyväskylä.

The Ombudsman ordered a pre-trial investigation because the regulations regarding closing the ballot envelope are clear and following them was a central task of an election official. Violating these regulations could at least in theory involve a risk of electoral fraud or put the secrecy of the ballot at risk if the ballot envelope was left open on the table when the voter walked away, as described in the complaint. Making a mistake in a core activity related to voting may have contributed to weakening the trust in electoral officials’ actions and the appropriateness of the elections in general. 

In the case of Hämeenlinna, a voter who arrived at the polling station on the actual election day was not allowed to vote because the voter's name had already been crossed out on the electoral roll, even though the voter says she had not yet voted.
The Ombudsman considered that the suspected incorrect actions of the election board should be thoroughly investigated and ordered a pre-trial investigation to be conducted also in this matter.

In his consideration of charges, the Ombudsman found that the election officials at the advance polling station in Jyväskylä and the first secretary of the central municipal election board who had trained them had acted in violation of the Election Act and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Justice. He therefore found them guilty of negligent violation of official duty. Because the election officials did not have any particular reason to doubt the correctness of the training given to them and because the incorrect instructions were based on the hygiene reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which were justified as such, the Ombudsman considered a reprimand to be a sufficient sanction for the incorrect actions. No charges were therefore brought.  

In the case of Hämeenlinna, the Parliamentary Ombudsman considered that it had not been established by whom and in which situation the voter's name had been crossed out on the electoral roll. The members of the election board had changed duties during the election day. Although the name had most likely been crossed out by mistake, it was not possible to obtain full certainty about the matter at the polling station. Because the chair of the election board had tried to find out the correct way of action also from the central municipal election board and because an unambiguous legal instruction about what action should be taken in this situation could not be found, the Ombudsman considered that the members of the election board who participated in making the decision on refusing the opportunity to vote had not violated their official duty based on provisions and regulations. Therefore, no charges were brought in this matter, either.

The decisions on not bringing charges (2292/2023 and 2414/2023) have been published (in Finnish) on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website www.oikeusasiamies.fi.

For more information, please contact Principal Legal Adviser Jarmo Hirvonen, tel. +358 9 432 3336.