Page 57 - Election Book-ENG

in sensitive political matters. But at other times it seems like
a wish to avoid addressing the merits of a case, or more like
complicity in suppressing challenges to the integrity of the
electoral system.

There are reported instances where South Korean courts go to
great lengths either to ignore evidence before their eyes or to
mischaracterize it.

For example, on occasions when recounts have been allowed, they
have produced strange, clearly irregular ballots. But the courts
have simply ignored these, and even though lawyers repeatedly
demanded thorough investigations the courts have refused. And
the ballot anomalies have gone unmentioned in their rulings.

Lawyers pursuing claims of electoral fraud have frequently
cited the courts’ unwillingness to preserve evidence—especially
critical in election-related cases—or to grant access to and allow
thorough examination of existing data and evidence. And in the
case of election system technology such as servers and ballot
counting machines, they’ve presented an impenetrable obstacle.

As mentioned earlier, the South Korean judiciary’s delay in
taking up and resolving suits claiming election irregularities
within the legally required 180 days – if they even take the case
at all – is hard to square with the idea of a diligent, impartial
judiciary that is interested in maintaining the legitimacy of the
electoral system.

Indeed, the right to bring challenges over fraud and wrongdoing
in the electoral process and to have timely resolution are basic
features of free and fair elections and well-run electoral systems,

Challenges Facing the South Korean Electoral System - 2024 57