In re 156th Presidential Election 2025 SDSC 41
In re 156th Presidential Election [2025] SDSC 41
| Date of judgment | 2nd December 2025 |
| Justices |
|
| Held | The election results were lawful |
| Ruling | 5-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
MAJORITY OPINION Per Curiam
Introduction
[1] The core issue raised by the petitioner was whether or not the Registration Commission has the ability to correct a SUIT after the deadline for voting has passed.
[2] The respondent, meanwhile, defends the practice of the RC making such corrections after the deadline for voting.
Summary of the Petition
[3] The petitioner asserts that any ballot submitted without a valid SUIT is not, in fact, a lawfully cast ballot. The petitioner continues that any such mistaken ballot cannot be corrected after the polling has closed, as doing so would constitute receiving a ballot after the polling window, which would not be countable under normal circumstances.
[4] The petitioner then additionally asserts that the RC cannot correct ballots merely to verify them, and that, as a result of the RC’s choice to make such a correction after the end of the 156th Presidential election, said election results were invalid.
Summary of the Response
[5] The respondent, meanwhile, asserts that a ballot is cast by an individual, not by a SUIT itself. As such, a ballot cast with an invalid SUIT does not invalidate the intention behind the vote.
[6] The respondent additionally touches on the point that all verification by the RC must be done after the end of the election, as per the Voter Registry Act 2025.
The Ambit of the Petition
[7] This petition submits a single core question, which raises a second question:
- [7.1] Does the RC possess the power to correct ballots which are submitted with an incorrect SUIT if requested by the voter?
- [7.2] Does the RC possess the power to proactively correct ballots they identify as carrying an incorrect SUIT?
[8] In the balance, these questions are one and the same, with the RC tasked with maintaining the list of SUITs and their corresponding voters, it necessarily becomes an overlapping issue when a ballot is submitted with an identifiable SUIT which is not completely correct.
[9] In the case of this election, the ballot in question was identified as containing an incorrect SUIT by the voter, who contacted the RC as a matter of course, as the RC is the only institution with knowledge of both the SUIT and its associated voter. As a result of their request, the RC was able to correct the typographical error in the SUIT, which otherwise did match the voter in question, and thus validated the ballot, which, if not for the typographical error, would have been entirely unremarkable in its normal submission.
[10] The general practice for the RC to contact individuals when, in the RC’s best estimation, a ballot has been submitted with an attached SUIT containing a typographical error is both meritorious and within the mandate of that institution.
[11] As the RC is mandated to verify SUITs only after the conclusion of the election, such verification must, by necessity, not disenfranchise voters who have made an honest mistake in the estimation of the RC. As such, the timing of this ballot’s SUIT being corrected after the end of the election is as mandated by law.
[12] It could also be argued that denying the RC this ability to correct obvious typographical mistakes would infringe on Article 18, §4 of the Constitution, an individual’s right to “express their opinion” in “Free and Fair” elections. The nature of a secret ballot with sometimes complex SUITs means that simple, innocent typographical errors are common, and not counting a vote because of said errors would remove that individual’s right to vote for a given election.
Decision
[13] The normal, valid submission of the ballot in question with an attached SUIT containing a typographical error, which was corrected by the RC’s standard procedure, was a lawfully valid ballot.
[14] The RC’s procedure of both accepting notice from concerned citizens regarding typographical errors in their SUIT as attached to their ballot, and of proactively contacting citizens when such typographical errors are identified, are both lawfully valid avenues of executing the lawful duty imposed on the RC, given of course that the RC makes every possible effort to ensure that such a service is extended to every citizen equally without distinction.
[15] The results of the 156th Presidential Election are valid without additional note.
CONCURRING OPINION by Chief Justice TheLittleSparty
[16] While I personally concur with the results that this election be held as valid, I must argue that I find the particular circumstances of this case to be a deciding factor between validity and exemption. Namely, I find that the RC’s mandate does not necessarily extend to positively validating an incorrect SUIT with a citizen who otherwise made no effort to verify that their SUIT may have contained a typographical error. In circumstances such as this case, the citizen in question actively contacting the RC to clear up a potential issue is in fact amongst the core duties of the RC as they are the only body with a record of both SUITs and users. I am however dubious on the assertion that the RC’s mandate includes actively asking voters to confirm that the SUIT attached to their ballot does not contain a typographical error.