An ‘election changing’ 55,000 votes could be barred under controversial new law

Friday, 26 September 2025

Turnout in local elections is looking low, with fewer than half of eligible voters likely to cast a ballot. Dale Ossowski of Election Services says online voting could re-engage younger New Zealanders who are used to digital life, not postal ballots.

The Electoral Commission expect the number of votes which will be cancelled due to lack of enrolment will quintuple to 55,000 following a controversial law change.

The Government is progressing a bill that will stop Kiwis enrolling to vote two weeks before election day.

For the last two elections Kiwis have been able to enrol to vote on election day, and for decades they have been able to enrol to vote until the day before.

Labour has attacked the bill as an attempt to stop lower propensity voters - who are thought to lean left - from turning out.

The Electoral Commission did not recommend the law change, and Justice officials were also against it.

In select committee on Thursday the commission presented a projection of votes in the 2026 election that suggested 55,000 votes would be “disallowed” because of a lack of enrolment, up from 11,000 in 2023.

These are people who would turn up and vote without being enrolled, and then have their vote not counted.

Officials explained that typically when a voter turns up without being clearly enrolled, the polling booth will still take the vote and attempt to find the enrolment later, only disallowing and not counting the vote if the enrolment cannot be found.

There would also be a boost in voters whose electorate vote was disallowed - from 43,000 to 73,000. These are voters who are enrolled in the wrong electorate but are still properly enrolled to vote in general, so have their national party vote allowed but their electorate vote thrown out. This already happens under the current system, but with less time to enrol or update details the commission expected the number to almost double.

Electoral Commission legal and policy manager Kristina Temel told the committee more votes would be disallowed because of the law change - and fewer people would show up to vote at all.

“We will be doing everything possible to let people know what the rules are. But if you bring the roll closure date forward, there will be an increase in the number of people who either don't vote or vote and have to have their vote disallowed,” Temel said.

The commission had not undertaken detailed modelling on how many people might not turn up to vote at all, just the effect on those who did turn up under a high turnout scenario.

At the last election around 230,000 voters either enrolled on the day or in the lead-up to the election, and would not have been allowed to do so under the proposed law.

Labour’s justice spokesman Duncan Webb said the Government was looking to tilt the playing field in its own favour.

“The 44,000 votes that the Commission projects will be disallowed is enough to change the outcome of an election - but it is only the tip of the iceberg. The Attorney General identified that over 200,000 people altered their enrolment in the voting period - and every one of those votes is now at risk.”

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he was confident the commission could get people enrolled properly.

“One of the core functions of the Electoral Commission is to ensure New Zealanders are enrolled to vote. I have every confidence in their ability to run an effective campaign ahead of the 2026 election, under the new settings.”

The Government has repeatedly insisted that people will change their behaviour as a response to the changes, rather than simply not enrolling.

Christopher Luxon said he expected votes would be counted faster - but officials disagreed.

Officials disagree changes will speed vote count

The Government’s stated purpose for the changes was to speed up the final count of votes, which took 20 days at the 2023 election.

Goldsmith set a goal of getting it back to 14 days, and said the law change was needed to stop it blowing out further from 20 days.

But speaking to The Post yesterday chief electoral officer Paul Le Quesne said the count would take 20 days with or without the law change.

This was down to a projected increase in special votes which would happen either way, as more people voted overseas or away from their electorate.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon rejected this position on Friday morning, saying he expected the commission to move “heaven and earth” to count votes faster under the new law.

The commission is statutorily independent from the Government of the day.

Goldsmith told The Post on Thursday that the advice he had seen suggested some change to the number of special votes was needed to stop the final count taking longer.

“The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. The clear advice we had, was one of the primary reasons for this was due to the massive increase in special votes, and without changes, could take even longer,” Goldsmith said.

“Combined with other changes such as the introduction of automatic enrolment, the Government’s expectation is the Electoral Commission speeds up the vote count process over time.”