This paper deals with some issues on the Public Official Election Act with reference to the 6th Local Election which was taken place on June 4, 2014.
First, excluding political party from local election is unconstitutional. It shall be constitutional problem, and it restricts not only freedom of political expression of candidates and political party, but also the right to know of the electors. And the legislative purpose of achieving the original goals of local autonomy self-government is highly uncertain or immaterial, the degree of the infringement upon the basic right is conspicuous. Furthermore, the revised-bills are against the binding power of KCC’s decision of unconstitutionality that ruled “prohibiting the expression of political party endorsement or recommendation by the candidates for election to an autonomous local council and not by the candidates in other local elections violates the principle of equality.
Second, an alternating order of ballot number system in assigning order on ballot papers is adopted at the first time in the our election history. Public Official Election Act 150(3) that provides order on ballot papers shall be determined the number of political parties' seats in the assembly shall be unconstitutional. Our Constitution does not provides privileges on the political parties but provides s[ecial protection against the States.
Third, prohibition of publication of public opinion poll shall be unconstitutional. Legislators assume that the integrity of electoral process relying on reasoned apprehension of harm is the most important interest and the KCC ruled that the freedom of electoral process is outweighed by the integrity of election. And the KCC doesn’t adopt the strict scrutiny test in reviewing the constitutionality of the Article108 Section(1). Rather the KCC adopted ‘evidence-control test’ which is apparently wrongful, and should not be applied in this case.
Lastly, There are disputation about (ⅰ) public prosecutor's (office) intervention in the electoral process, (ⅱ) whether such an expression ‘a unified candidate’ can be used, (ⅲ) arbitarary(unfair) law enforcement of poesecutor’s (office) and/or election commissions.