Bangkok: Chanchai Issarasenaraks, former Member of Parliament for Nakhon Nayok, has taken a significant step by submitting a petition to the Ombudsman, urging the referral of the recent election case to the Constitutional Court. Chanchai's move seeks a ruling under Section 46 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561 (2018) to declare the general election of Members of Parliament, held on February 8, 2016, null and void due to the use of unauthorized symbols on the ballot papers.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Chanchai expressed his concern as a citizen whose rights have been compromised, highlighting that the Constitution explicitly prohibits the use of symbols on ballot papers. Despite this, the Election Commission included barcodes and QR codes on the ballots. In response, Chanchai filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, who is required to take action within a 60-day timeframe.
Chanchai presented documentary evidence, including a sample ballot from the 2011 parliamentary election, to support his claims. He had previously initiated a lawsuit in Nakhon Nayok province, seeking election-related documents from the Election Commission, excluding already-marked ballots, to investigate potential election fraud. He discovered that the sample ballot he received contained no symbols, rendering it untraceable.
Furthermore, Chanchai noted that the sample ballot released by the Election Commission before the election did not feature QR codes or any symbols. However, the actual ballots included such symbols, violating citizens' rights nationwide. He emphasized that it is his responsibility to prompt the Ombudsman to take action, presenting a large body of evidence to support his case.
The law stipulates that symbols are prohibited, and no one, except the voter, should know the voter's choice. Chanchai asserted that the Election Commission cannot deflect responsibility by blaming the company that produced the ballots. If the Terms of Reference (TOR) were exceeded or the law violated, the ballots would be invalid. Additionally, if a new election is called, the Election Commission must face criminal and civil proceedings. Chanchai argued that simply holding a new election would be a misuse of taxpayer money, given the Election Commission's authority and responsibility in handling the ensuing legal matters. Currently, the focus remains on the Constitutional Court case.
Regarding the requirement for verification, Chanchai claimed to have evidence that photographs of ballots and stubs were taken post-vote count. This allows for verification by scanning the QR codes or barcodes from the photographs to determine ballot-stub matches.