CNJ reveals lax controls that make fraud a simple task

THE Camden New Journal can reveal this week how the Town Hall is failing to stop postal vote fraud.
We were able to obtain ballot papers after filling in postal application forms that were swiftly processed by officials dealing with the election at the Town Hall. In one case a member of the New Journal staff obtained a polling card addressed to a resident who had left Primrose Hill more than a year ago.
After filling in the name of the resident a ballot paper was returned on Tuesday.
The same staff member, who is able to vote in Camden, applied for a postal ballot using a different forename than his registered name and, again, officials sent him a ballot paper.
Although these are only two cases they illustrate how easy it is to set out to rig the vote.
In both cases we wish to make it clear that we do not intend whatsoever to use these ballot papers or to take any action that will allow anyone else to use them.
We can also reveal that the election fraud is possible because the Town Hall appears not to have enough staff to check postal applications.
Apart from the high number of people registered for postal voting before the election campaign began – 12,000 in all – nearly 4,000 have applied for a postal vote in the past six months. Eleven per cent of Camden’s electorate will now vote by post.
In March, 600 applications were received and the surge continued this month with 1,170 more applications reaching the Town Hall before Tuesday’s final deadline. This means the rate of applications being received at the Town Hall are running at a level of nearly 300 a week during the final surge of applications.
Yet in a statement issued this week the Town Hall admitted that only six permanent staff are employed by the office run by Richard Lefley, the borough’s election returning officer, to check applications.
Though more staff are brought in during the election period the Town Hall was not able at the time of going to press to disclose how many help in checking applications.
It is likely that as a result of an undermanned department, applications are being merely rubber-stamped.
The approved applications sent to a member of our staff appear to underline this faulty procedure.
The system at the Town Hall is virtually an open invitation for rigging. The simple application form is at the root of the problem. A person applying for a postal vote is only asked to provide a name, address and a signature. An applicant is not even required to provide basic information such as date of birth or, as is required by banks, a letter from credit companies and public utilities, or one’s mother’s maiden name. If these fundamental checks were made few fraudulent applications would get through the net.
Even if signatures were cross-checked with those on other council documents, such as council tax forms, fraudulent claims would be spotted.
A Camden council statement said: “We take the administration of the postal voting system extremely seriously and work very hard to ensure the security and accuracy of postal voting, as advised by national guidelines.
“Our election team responds to each application for postal voting to acknowledge our receipt of the application and confirm all details. There is no evidence that we have a problem with security in Camden. The information included on the application form is in line with the guidance provided by the Electoral Committee. As a further safeguard, all applications are followed with individual letters, which gives a further opportunity to safeguard against fraud or potential for misunderstanding.”