R (on the application of Coughlan) v Minister for the Cabinet Office

Last updated

R (on the application of Coughlan) v Minister for the Cabinet Office
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Argued15 February 2022
Decided27 April 2022
Neutral citation[2022] UKSC 11
Case history
Appealed from England and Wales Court of Appeal
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens, Dame Siobhan Keegan
Case opinions
Pilot schemes for voter ID are not ultra vires section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000
Decision byLord Stephens (joined by Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen and Dame Siobhan Keegan)
Area of law
Election law

R (on the application of Coughlan) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2022] UKSC 11 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom regarding whether the introduction of voter ID pilot schemes was legal under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000. The court held unanimously that it was legal and dismissed the appeal.

Contents

Background

At the 2017 general election, the Conservative Party pledged in their manifesto to "legislate to ensure that a form of identification must be presented before voting". [1] :11 The Conservatives remained in government and piloted voter ID in five local authorities at the 2018 local elections: Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking. [1] :21

The government sought further local authorities to pilot the scheme in the 2019 local elections. In November 2018, it was announced that Braintree, Broxtowe, Derby, East Staffordshire, Mid Sussex, North Kesteven, North West Leicestershire, Pendle and Ribble Valley would be joining the pilot scheme, [2] although East Staffordshire and Ribble Valley later pulled out. [3] The Minister for the Cabinet Office, David Lidington, then made orders under Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (RPA) to allow the pilot schemes to go ahead in those areas.

Case

Neil Coughlan, a voluntary worker, former district councillor and resident of Witham (part of Braintree District Council), did not have access to photo ID which would have rendered him unable to vote. [3] [4] [5] In December 2018, he began crowdfunding £10,000 to fund a legal case to challenge the pilot schemes. [6]

In January 2019, Coughlan sought judicial review of the schemes, arguing that voter ID requirements would "disenfranchise the poor and vulnerable who already have their voices heard". [7] :§1–2 Coughlan suggested that the orders which implemented the pilot schemes were ultra vires (outside the legal power given to the Minister) because they were not schemes within the meaning of section 10(2)(a) of the RPA, [7] :§3 and that the schemes themselves were not authorised for a legal purpose under section 10(1). [7] :§4

The case had several interveners: the Runnymede Trust, Operation Black Vote and Voice4Change England all expressed concerns that voter ID measures would create barriers for ethnic minority communities to vote and Stonewall and the LGBT Foundation expressed similar concerns that it would impact voting access for LGBTQ+ people. [7] :§2

Previous proceedings

In March 2019, High Court judge Michael Supperstone ruled that the schemes had been "made lawfully". [8] Coughlan gained permission to appeal the decision in October 2019. [9] In June 2020, his case was rejected in a Court of Appeal judgement by Lord Justice McCombe (joined by Lords Justice Underhill and Green). [10]

Judgment

The appeal was dismissed unanimously, with all judges agreeing that pilot schemes were within the meaning of section 10(2)(a) of the RPA and were authorised for a lawful purpose under section 10(1). [7] :§76–78

Reaction

Labour Shadow Minister for Voter Engagement and Youth Affairs Cat Smith said the challenge was "vital for defending British democracy". [6] Sam Coates from Unlock Democracy said the case was "an important response to attempts to rig the next election in the government's favour". [9]

After the judgment, Coughlan said he was "very disappointed by the outcome" of the case, but noted that the fact it had made its way to the Supreme Court "reflects the importance of the issues". [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> US federal legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in voting

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. The National Archives and Records Administration stated: "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California Proposition 22</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. In November 2008, Proposition 8 was also passed by voters, again only allowing marriage between one man and one woman.

Voter caging involves challenging the registration status of voters and calling into question the legality of allowing them to vote. Usually it involves sending mail directly to registered voters and compiling a list from mail returned undelivered. Undeliverable mail is seen as proof that the person no longer resides at the address on their voter registration. The resultant list is then used by election officials to purge names from the voter registration rolls or to challenge voters' eligibility to vote on the grounds that the voters no longer reside at their registered addresses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wisconsin Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in Wisconsin. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over original actions, appeals from lower courts, and regulation or administration of the practice of law in Wisconsin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brennan Center for Justice</span> Liberal law and public policy institute at New York University School of Law

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a liberal or progressive nonprofit law and public policy institute. The organization is named after Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. The Brennan Center advocates for public policy positions including raising the minimum wage, opposing voter ID laws, and calling for public funding of elections. The organization opposed the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voter identification laws</span> Laws requiring proof of identity to vote

A voter identification law is a law that requires a person to show some form of identification in order to vote. In some jurisdictions requiring photo IDs, voters who do not have photo ID often must have their identity verified by someone else or sign a Challenged Voter Affidavit in order to receive a ballot to vote.

The Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2012 amended the Constitution of Ireland by inserting clauses relating to children's rights and the right and duty of the state to take child protection measures. It was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) on 10 October 2012, and approved at a referendum on 10 November 2012, by 58% of voters on a turnout of 33.5%. Its enactment was delayed by a High Court case challenging the conduct of the referendum. The High Court's rejection of the challenge was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2015. It was signed into law by the President on 28 April 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voter identification laws in the United States</span>

Voter ID laws in the United States are laws that require a person to provide some form of official identification before they are permitted to register to vote, receive a ballot for an election, or to actually vote in elections in the United States.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4, which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of racial discrimination in voting.

Voter suppression in the United States consists of various legal and illegal efforts to prevent eligible citizens from exercising their right to vote. Such voter suppression efforts vary by state, local government, precinct, and election. Voter suppression has historically been used for racial, economic, gender, age and disability discrimination. After the American Civil War, all African-American men were granted voting rights, but poll taxes or language tests were used to limit and suppress the ability to register or cast a ballot. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 improved voting access. Since the beginning of voter suppression efforts, proponents of these laws have cited concerns over electoral integrity as a justification for various restrictions and requirements, while opponents argue that these constitute bad faith given the lack of voter fraud evidence in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering in the United States</span> Setting electoral district boundaries to favor specific political interests

Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wisconsin Elections Commission</span> Wisconsin state commission charged with administering and enforcing election laws

The Wisconsin Elections Commission is a bipartisan regulatory agency of the state of Wisconsin established to administer and enforce election laws in the state. The Wisconsin Elections Commission was established by a 2015 act of the Wisconsin Legislature which also established the Wisconsin Ethics Commission to administer campaign finance, ethics, and lobbying laws. The two commissions began operation on June 30, 2016, replacing the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB), which was abolished.

<i>R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union</i> Constitutional decision of Supreme Court

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so. Two days later, the government responded by bringing to Parliament the European Union Act 2017 for first reading in the House of Commons on 26 January 2017. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or "Miller I".

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of governmental speech restrictions in a polling place venue. The case challenged a century-old Minnesota law that prevents voters from wearing clothing or items considered political while voting. While the Supreme Court previously affirmed that political campaigning near polling places may be restricted, the Minnesota law was challenged on being overbroad and violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. The case's decision was issued on June 14, 2018, with the Court finding 7–2 that the Minnesota law was overbroad of what could be considered "political" speech, violating free speech rights and deemed unconstitutional.

<i>R (Wilson) v Prime Minister</i> United Kingdom constitutional law case

R (Wilson) v Prime Minister [2019] EWCA Civ 304 is a UK constitutional law case, involving judicial review of the Brexit referendum in 2016. The claimants, including Wilson, argued that illegality through Russian interference, criminal overspending by Vote Leave and criminal investigation into the largest donor, Arron Banks, before and during the referendum undermined the integrity of the result, and rendered the decision to leave void. The application was refused in the High Court. In December 2018, the claimants lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal. This was rejected on 21 February.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ben Habib</span> British politician and businessman

Benyamin Naeem Habib is a British-Pakistani politician, who served from 2023 to July 2024 as Co-Deputy Leader of Reform UK, alongside David Bull. He and Bull were removed from their position and replaced by Richard Tice as the new Deputy Leader following the 2024 General Election He was elected as a Brexit Party Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in the 2019 European parliamentary election. He remained in the role until the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 Texas elections</span>

Texas state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Its primaries were held on March 3, 2020, with runoffs taking place on July 14.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections Act 2022</span> UK legislation

The Elections Act 2022 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that was introduced to the House of Commons in July 2021 and received royal assent on 28 April 2022. The act makes photo identification compulsory for in-person voting in Great Britain for the first time. Before the act was passed, Northern Ireland had been the only part of the UK to require voter identification. The act also gives the government new powers over the independent elections regulator; the Electoral Commission has said it is "concerned" about its independence from political influence in the future.

<i>Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General</i> 2022 New Zealand Supreme Court judgment

Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General is a 2022 landmark decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand in which the court held that the country's current voting age of 18 was discriminatory. The court found that the provisions in the Electoral Act 1993 and Local Electoral Act 2001 that set the voting age of 18 years was an unjustified limitation on the right to be free from age discrimination in section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sarah Sackman</span> British barrister and Labour Party politician

Sarah Rebecca Sackman is a British barrister and Labour Party politician who has served as a Member of Parliament (MP) for Finchley and Golders Green, and as the Solicitor General for England and Wales since 2024. She has gained prominence for her work in environmental and public law, as well as her political activities within the Labour Party.

References

  1. 1 2 Michela Palese; Chris Terry (September 2018). "A Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut: The 2018 Voter ID Trials" (PDF). Electoral Reform Society . Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  2. "Next round of Voter ID pilots announced for 2019". GOV.UK . 3 November 2018. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  3. 1 2 "Position on the 2019 Voter ID Pilots". Electoral Reform Society . 1 May 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  4. "High Court rejects legal challenge over Voter ID pilot". Local Government Lawyer. 20 March 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  5. Jake Richards (9 June 2020). "Challenge to new voter ID pilot dismissed by Court of Appeal". UK Human Rights Blog. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  6. 1 2 "2019 elections: Legal challenge to extend voter ID checks". BBC News . 4 December 2018. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 "R (on the application of Coughlan) (Appellant) v Minister for the Cabinet Office (Respondent)" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United Kingdom . Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  8. "Voter ID trials ruled lawful by High Court judge". BBC News . 20 March 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  9. 1 2 Zoe Tidman (1 March 2020). "'Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut': Voter ID critics question whether plans for nationwide rollout will cause more harm than good". The Independent . Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  10. "Voter ID trials ruled lawful by appeal judges". BBC News . 5 June 2020. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  11. Macaully Moffat (27 April 2022). "Witham man Neil Coughlan loses voter ID case in Supreme Court". Braintree and Witham Times. Retrieved 10 May 2023.