Democracies, especially those that rely heavily on convention rather than written constitutions, are only as strong as they are stable and open.
Any proposed changes should be carefully and independently scrutinised, and only implemented with the utmost care. This is especially crucial when those changes constrain or restrict our precious universal franchise.
Recent concerns over the number of people, both Māori and non-Māori, removed or deferred from the electoral roll highlight how vigilant we can, and should be, about our voting rights.
While it is good that more people are now checking their enrolment details, we should be able to trust the Electoral Commission to maintain a stable and accurate roll.
That trust is eroding under this government.
We like to think fondly of New Zealand as having a stable and open democratic system. We proudly proclaim being the first country to grant women the vote in 1893.
We even look down on Australia, noting that Māori men gained suffrage in 1867 and Māori women in 1893.
But our franchise history is by no means perfect. It has always been subject to political judgements about who was deemed "worthy" of voting.
That said, changes to enrolment and voting laws over the last century have mostly focused on expanding the franchise, not restricting it.
It took 40 years from New Zealand’s first election in 1853 for women to gain voting rights in 1893 — but they were not granted full political rights (the ability to both vote and stand for election) until 1919.
The voting age shifted from 21 in 1853 to 20 in 1969, then to 18 in 1974. It has not changed in 50 years, despite strong advocacy and independent advice urging the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds.
For Māori, voting rights have very slowly improved. Māori men gained suffrage in 1867 and all Māori had the right to choose between the general or Māori roll from 1975.
However, the ability to switch rolls remains restricted, with Māori still barred from changing rolls in the three months before an election.
There has never been a good reason for this constraint.
Prisoners have suffered the worst of political flip-flopping on voting rights. No, they could not vote from 1853, then Yes they could from 1975. No from 1977, Yes if sentenced to less than three years from 1993, No from 2010, Yes if sentenced to less than three years from 2020, and now No again from 2025.
Stripping prisoners of voting rights as an extra, hidden punishment is a constitutional and legal disgrace.
While incarcerated, they remain citizens. The evidence shows that once removed from the roll, few ever re-enrol.
They are the only group to have suffrage explicitly revoked by law. Every other electoral change has expanded voting access and rights.
Until now that is.
The coalition government’s proposed electoral roll changes amount to a deliberate effort to exclude thousands of voters, creating a deeply discriminatory system.
The issue has been underscored by reforms that reek of targeted disenfranchisement, evident in the deputy prime minister’s own derogatory language directed at some voters.
These reforms represent the first major legislative restrictions on voting rights in over a century.
They would strip prisoners of voting rights (again) and close the electoral roll two weeks before election day.
The government’s own officials admit this will disenfranchise 100,000 New Zealanders.
Their justification? That counting special votes takes too long.
Frankly, the post-election interregnum is not the catastrophe they claim. Many of us enjoy the brief respite from frenetic campaigning and the minimal press releases while Parliament is not sitting.
We have a caretaker government but they just cannot do much. That is no bad thing.
Some people might get grumpy that it takes a couple of weeks to know if the government is blue or red, but it creates no great constitutional crisis.
This manufactured rationale is entirely self-serving. Especially when there is a better alternative.
The 2023 Independent Electoral Review proposed modernising the Electoral Commission’s system with live electronic roll mark-offs, replacing the antiquated paper, pen-and-ruler method.
This would help to reduce special votes and speed up counting, without purging citizens from the electoral roll.
But this government does not want more people voting. They do not want efficiency or fairness.
They only want "their" people voting — and they are rigging the system to make it happen.
■ Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
