Adamant objection to the bill introducing voting by post in the next presidential election in Poland

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights expresses its adamant objection to the bill presented by a group of MPs introducing voting by post in the general election to the office of President of the Republic of Poland in 2020.



Position of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Warsaw on the bill regarding the special principles of holding general elections to the office of President of the Republic of Poland ordered in 2020.

 

The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights expresses its adamant objection to the bill presented by a group of MPs introducing voting by post in the general election to the office of President of the Republic of Poland in 2020.

 

According to the HFHR, the procedure of processing the bill and the regulations that are being introduced constitute a fundamental threat to the honesty and fairness of the elections. The change in the laws governing the procedure and organisation of the elections just a few weeks before voting is inadmissible from the point of view of ensuring the integrity of the election campaign and appropriate organisation of the elections.

 

Furthermore, the draft provisions, just as the previous proposals of amendments to the Electoral Code, do not address the challenges related to holding elections in the conditions of the epidemic. The bill that is being processed primarily poses a threat to the health of the citizens taking part in the elections at the time of the epidemic, both those forced to cast votes on a completed or empty voting card and those supporting the electoral process.

 

Therefore, we believe that the bill that is being processed, like the previous amendments to the Electoral Code, as well as any possible subsequent changes that will unconstitutionally change the rules of voting, should only be considered an attempt to safeguard the particular interests of the ruling party at the expense of the citizens, as well as the good of the Republic of Poland.

 

Essentially, participation in elections held in this way will constitute consent to a breach of the fundamental rules of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. It will also unjustifiably contribute to legitimising the morally and legally dubious victory of the candidate representing the ruling party. Therefore, the HFHR leaves it up to the conscience of every voter to decide whether they agree that the vote they cast should constitute a justification of such a drastic breach of the basic principles of the functioning of the state of Poland.

 

Warsaw, April 7th 2020

 

Source: The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights website



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

April 7, 2020

Tags

Supreme Courtrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsEuropean CommissionDisciplinary ChamberNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceCourt of JusticeConstitutional TribunaljudgesAndrzej DudaPolandEuropean UniondemocracyZbigniew Ziobropresidential electionsjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsCJEUMinister of Justiceelections 2020Court of Justice of the EUIgor TuleyaCOVID-19PresidentProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsLaw and Justicemuzzle lawJarosław Kaczyńskiacting first president of the Supreme CourtMay 10 2020 elections2017Freedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionConstitutionNCJdisciplinary systemelectionsNational Electoral CommissionCommissioner for Human RightsKamil ZaradkiewiczGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiMałgorzata Manowskademocratic backslidingdecommunizationfreedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaLaw on the NCJrecommendationAdam BodnarHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropereportZiobroPM Mateusz Morawieckifreedom of expressionprosecutionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawHungarycriminal lawNational ProsecutorcoronavirusC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesWojciech Hermelińskiresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresAndrzej ZollPKWMarek SafjanMałgorzata Gersdorfinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrdo IurisOSCEOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeEuropean Court of Human RightsFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT free zonesequalityLGBT ideology free zonespopulismMateusz MorawieckiPrime Ministerequal treatmentfundamental rightspoliceCT PresidentJustice Defence Committee – KOSEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justicepublic opinion pollSupreme Court President2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiArticle 7European ParliamentLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiSupreme Administrative Courtadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeconditionalityEU budgetC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskijudgetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatehuman rightstrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakMinistry of JusticeJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billPiS