Constitutional Court Decision on Registration of Voters - Half Success

The HCLU agrees with the Constitutional Court's decision that pre-registration of voters residing in Hungary is an unnecessary legal restriction. In order to ensure universal and equal suffrage not only the relevant law, but the Fundamental Law of Hungary itself should also be reviewed.

The decision made by the Constitutional Court rightly concludes that the introduction of pre-registration of voters for election violates constitutional principles. Since there is an operating population-registration system, the requirement is an unnecessary restriction. The Constitutional Court’s present decision reflects the HCLU’s and a number of other human rights groups’ previous opinions.

The HCLU also welcomes that on the basis of the Constitutional Court’s decision, the voting rights of homeless individuals living in Hungary must also be guaranteed.  We also agree with the fact that the Constitutional Court annulled restrictions concerning freedom of the press during the election campaign.

However, the HCLU calls attention to the fact that today's Constitutional Court decision does not create democratic conditions for elections. The biggest obstacle is the Fundamental Law itself, which lacks fair electoral system principles, and a number of its regulations are in violation of unified and equal voting rights. For example, the Fundamental Law allows for the deprivation of voting rights of citizens living with intellectual disability on discretionary grounds. Following the adoption of the Fundamental Law, the two-thirds parliamentary majority further reduced the chances of fair elections (i.g. election of National Election Committee members, the gerrymandering of election districts, etc.) The issue of registration was just one element.

Based on the above, it is the HCLU’s opinion that even after the Constitutional Court’s decision, there is still a significant risk that democratic principles will not prevail during the next elections. In addition, governing party politicians have already previously declared their intent to amend the Fundamental Law in order to override the Constitutional Court’s decision. In the coming months, a lot depends on the President of the Republic and the Constitutional Court.

The President of the Republic could prove that he is an independent public official if in the future and in order to remedy all significant constitutional problems, he were to ask the Constitutional Court for Ex ante Review of Conformity with the Fundamental Law (Preliminary Norm Control) not only with the approval and upon the appeal of the Prime Minister, but by his own choice.

It is justified for the Constitutional Court to leave behind the notion that the current Fundamental Law is a unified system and merits unconditional protection, since it is a blend of democratic and anti-democratic regulations. With current and expected constitutional amendments, only the number of antidemocratic regulations will increase. It is the Constitutional Court’s duty to review and annul such future constitutional amendments, and other unconstitutional provisions, based on democratic principles and international standards.

Share

Related articles

HCLU: The Hungarian Example

Presented by Máté Dániel Szabó (Director of Programs, HCLU) at the international conference "No country for civil society – What strategies can human rights organizations follow under increasingly authoritarian regimes?" on 30 May, 2014, Budapest

Again, the Banning of the Budapest Pride March Requires Legal Remedy

With the legal help of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, the Rainbow Mission Foundation challenges the banning order issued by the Budapest Chief of Police.

Constitution-concerns of the Hungarian Judiciary Elite

Leading Hungarian NGOs, Transparency International Hungary and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union besides expressing their criticism about the new Hungarian Constitution and the Constitution-writing process, wish to express their deep concern regarding the recent initiatives of the parliamentary majority to radically encroach upon the independence of the judiciary system.