Data collected by the Government to assess its voter ID policy could present a false picture of its impact, a senior sector figure has warned.
Councils have been asked to keep records of people turned away from polling stations due to issues with their ID at local elections in May.
But concerns have been raised that the data local authorities have been asked by the Government to record will not provide an accurate representation of the impact of the new requirements.
A refused ballot paper list will record anyone who cannot confirm their name and address or produces ID that is fake or belongs to someone else.
In additon, a voter ID evaluation form will record people who turn up without any valid identification.
However, not everyone without ID will be recorded on the list, with those turned away before reaching the presiding officer not counting towards the figures.
Writing in The MJ this week, returning officer Ian Miller warned the data would give an incomplete picture.
He wrote: ‘This seems likely to result in a significant underreporting of individuals who have been affected by the change in the rules.’
Local government minister Lee Rowley told the House of Commons ‘data will be collected at the upcoming scheduled local elections’ and would ‘inform the reports the Government will publish on the impact of this policy’.
Speaking at a select committee hearing yesterday, elections spokesperson for senior officers' group Solace, Louise Round, highlighted the knock-on impact of voter ID requirements on finding volunteers to run polling stations.
She said: ‘The concerns are the additional burden it's placing on presiding officers in particular.
‘Getting someone to come along and spend 15 hours in a draughty polling station isn’t always easy at the best of times and when they have this added responsibility I think that will put some pressure on recruitment.’
Barry Quirk, a former council chief executive and returning officer at more than 30 elections, warned against tampering with the electoral process.
He said: ‘There are lots of things that we can do, but we shouldn’t take it too far and undermine the seriousness and integrity of elections.
‘If you can throw mud at the electoral process and say it’s not been done properly or fairly there’s not been sufficiently robust integrity.
'I think that’s corrosive to democratic politics.’
