Public Elections: electronic voting – electoral registration review.

STATES OF JERSEY

PUBLIC ELECTIONS: ELECTRONIC VOTING – ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REVIEW

Presented to the States on 12th December 2016 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

2016  R.127

2

REPORT

On 22nd March 2016, the States adopted the proposition of Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier entitled Public Elections: electronic voting' (P.10/2016), as amended by an amendment of the Privileges and Procedures Committee ("PPC") (P.10/2016 Amd.), which  in  turn  was  adopted  as  amended  by  an  amendment  of   Deputy   Southern (P.10/2016 Amd. Amd.).

In adopting the amended proposition, the States agreed –

to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC), in conjunction with the Comité des Connétable s, and other government bodies as appropriate, to research and trial electronic voting systems in order to introduce –

1. methods for electronic voter registration; and
2. safe and secure mechanisms to enable eligible voters, who wish to do so, to vote electronically, as soon as practicable;
3. and to report progress to the States annually.

Association of Electoral Administrators

In relation to part (a) of the proposition, PPC, as previously constituted, engaged the Association of Electoral Administrators ("the Association") in 2013 to develop a new way to provide the electoral register. At that time, the Association recommended that a pilot study should be carried out to compare a selection of the electoral registers against the Names and Addresses Register (Populus). This review subsequently revealed that 99% of electoral register records successfully matched with data on Populus, and that relatively few of those records contained inaccuracies. In 2016 the Association was asked to provide a paper on the main issues which need to be addressed before electronic voter registration can be introduced.

These areas are –

the franchise (right to vote in public elections);

the process for registering electors;

voting arrangements; and

absent voting (by post, proxy or in advance).

The cost of the work undertaken by the Association, including the preparation of the issues paper, entitled: Development of a new electoral registration system in Jersey' was £4,722.50. The paper is attached herewith.

R.127/2016

3

TCB Consulting Ltd.

TCB Consulting Ltd. currently have a contractual relationship to support the electoral role database in the parishes. They have been engaged by the Greffier of the States and the e-Gov Business Change Director to review the way in which electors are currently registered in Jersey, and to propose a recommended approach to achieve online voter registration, potentially in time for the 2018 elections.

TCB's report on this subject, entitled: Electoral Registration Review' is  attached herewith.  It  recommends  that  Jersey  goes  for  automatic  and  permanent  elector registration, making best use of the new People Directory being developed by the e-Gov programme, whilst retaining the central role of the parishes in owning the electoral registration system and data, as soon as the dependencies identified are in place. Almost without exception, this recommendation was supported by the stakeholders interviewed during the preparation of the report.

To date, TCB have been paid £17,471 for their services, to include the drafting of the report.

PPC has agreed to progress towards the introduction of automatic electoral registration, which would be based on the People Directory. The People Directory is a database, which is currently under development by the e-Gov programme and will capture core data about individuals in the Island (such as names and addresses), which has been appropriately verified. The information would be obtained from a number of approved sources, and Islanders who fulfil the requirements to be an elector would automatically be included in the relevant database, which would mean that they would no longer have to complete paper registration forms each autumn.

It is not possible to guarantee that the new system will be working appropriately in time for the 2018 elections. Accordingly, there will be a period when the current and new systems will operate in tandem. Therefore, the paper forms, which will inform the electoral registers for the 2018 elections, will be distributed as normal during 2017.

PPC has authorised the preparation of Law Drafting instructions to make the necessary changes to the  Public  Elections  (Jersey)  Law  2002  to enable  automatic  electoral registration.

R.127/2016

Development of a new electoral registration system in Jersey

Issues Paper

1. Introduction

The Association was engaged in 2013 to assist the Privileges and Procedures Committee in developing a new way to provide the electoral register. As a result of our report, I have made further visits to explore the most appropriate way forward, the most recent being on 27 June 2016.

2. Background

During a previous visit in November 2015, it had been agreed to carry out a sample comparison of three electoral registers (urban and rural) against the Names and Addresses Register (Populus). The review was carried out under the provisions of the Register of Names and Addresses (Comparison with Electoral Registers) (Jersey) Regulations 2015. The following outlines the findings of that review:

• 99% of records successfully matched with Populus
• 20 apparently duplicate individuals in the electoral role dataset (ERD)
• 158 individuals with slightly differing dates of birth (clearly mis-types)
• 300 individuals whose surname has changed
• 101 individuals within ERD now known to be deceased
• 98 individuals within ERD known to have left Jersey
• 1,790 individuals within ERD now living at a different address.

The general conclusion which can be drawn from the above is that the Populus database provides a very good confirmation of the accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers maintained by the parishes. By utilising the additional information set out in the six bullet points below the first one, both accuracy and completeness can be improved.

As part of my meetings on 27 June, I also had briefings from the respective managers for Data Management, Web Services, E-Government and Tell Us Once. Following these meetings, this Issues Paper broadly outlines the issues which now need to be addressed.

3. Main Areas The Franchise

Put simply, the franchise is the right to vote in public elections. It therefore deals with the qualifications necessary for a person to be registered to exercise that right. In general terms, the qualifications have regard to citizenship, age, residence and eligibility (i.e. not disqualified for any legal reason).

The primary issues to be determined in relation to this area are:

• The qualifications necessary to be registered as an elector for elections to the States of Jersey and for other elections at a parish level, if different
• Disfranchisement for any purpose or reason, e.g. criminal convictions
• Entitlement to be registered
• Residence

Registration of Electors

Once the franchise has been established, the foundation of any electoral system is the process for registering electors. In this respect, unless the system provides for compulsory registration, it is important to differentiate between electors and voters. The former are those who have been registered and are entitled to vote; the latter are those who actually exercise their right to vote.

The primary issues to be determined in relation to this area are:

• The register
• The steps to be taken to compile and publish the registers
• Revision of registers
• Objections to register applications or entries
• Determination of register applications or entries
• Alterations or corrections to registers
• Verification of application to be registered
• Registration appeals
• Restrictions on use of registers
• Supply of information contained in registers

Voting arrangements

Article 21(3) of The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." The arrangements for voting for registered electors in a secret ballot clearly need to comply with this requirement. However, such arrangements are outside the scope of this review. Having said that, if there are to be any changes to the system for electoral registration which lead to a requirement for amending legislation, it would be sensible to consider whether there is a need for any amendment to existing legislation in relation to elections.

The primary issues to be determined in relation to any changes to this area would be:

• Electoral boundaries and determination of electoral areas
• Polling districts including arrangements for review
• Appointment of polling stations
• Timing as to elections
• Rules for elections to the States of Jersey
• Rules for elections to local bodies

• Effect of registers
• Effect of non-compliance with rules
• Entitlement to vote at an election
• Place and manner of voting

Absent Voting

The term absent voting is used to describe a system of voting whereby electors who are unable or unwilling to vote at their allocated polling station can cast their vote by alternative means. The means commonly include postal voting or voting by proxy but can also include advance or early voting including special arrangements for electors living or working overseas.

The primary issues to be determined in relation to this area are:

• Postal voting
• Voting by Proxy
• Advance voting

4. Public Policy issues

In preparing the topics from the main subject areas listed above, I have identified a number of questions which need consideration as to whether any change to present arrangements are necessary. Most relate either to existing practices where change to the present arrangements might be desirable or to areas of electoral administration which are currently not included, in full or in part, in the Jersey framework.

I refer to these as public policy issues because they affect other parts of public administration or because they would introduce new arrangements or requirements in respect of the provision of electoral administration. The issues which I have identified are set out in the table below. However, it has to be recognised that this list may not be complete because of the iterative nature of this review and the fact that more areas for consideration may be raised as a result of the discussions and consultation which will take place in relation to this paper.

5. Timetable

Given that the next General Election is due to take place in May 2018, it is essential that a realistic and achievable timetable is followed for the consideration and implementation of the issues outlined above. Having discussed this matter with officials, I suggest the following timetable as a guide.

• Principles to be considered and agreed – by no later than December 2016
• Changes to the law to be made - by no later than September 2017
• Privy Council agreement to be received - by no later than December 2017

John Turner 03 August 2016

Electoral Registration Review

Title:  Electoral registration review Client:  States Greffe

Date:  20th October 2016

Prepared by:  Tim Baker and Christian Julé Version:  1.1

 TCB Consulting | in partnership with Ascent Software

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 4 Brief ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Objective ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Research best solution.................................................................................................................... 5 Implementation options ................................................................................................................... 5 Scope .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Research the Best Solution..................................................................................................................... 5 UK – Electronic registration (recently moved from household registration) .................................... 5 Guernsey ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Europe - 50% automatic registration ............................................................................................... 7 France ............................................................................................................................................. 7 United States of America – moving to automatic registration ......................................................... 8 Other countries .................................................................................................................................... 9 Pros and cons of the options .............................................................................................................. 9 Household registration .................................................................................................................... 9 Electronic registration ...................................................................................................................... 9 Automatic registration ................................................................................................................... 10 System architecture options .................................................................................................................. 10 Standalone Electoral Register System ............................................................................................. 11 Electoral Register information in a Citizens' database...................................................................... 11 Electoral Register system linked to Citizens' database .................................................................... 11 Off the shelf or bespoke .................................................................................................................... 11 Solution recommended for Jersey ........................................................................................................ 12 Ideal solution ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Dependencies ................................................................................................................................... 12 Legal Framework dependency ...................................................................................................... 13 People Directory dependency ....................................................................................................... 13 Parish and public dependency ...................................................................................................... 14 Authentication ................................................................................................................................... 15 Solution for 2018 elections ................................................................................................................ 15 Option 1 – new process and systems for 2018 election ............................................................... 16

Option 2 – Introduce new process and systems after 2018 election ............................................ 16 Recommendation .......................................................................................................................... 17 Stake Holder Responses ...................................................................................................................... 18 Parishes ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Automatic voter registration .......................................................................................................... 18 Online voting ................................................................................................................................. 18 Other Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................... 19 Outline Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Citizens' Database ........................................................................................................................ 20 Electoral Register system ............................................................................................................. 20 Proposed Timescales........................................................................................................................ 21 Appendix 1 - Summary of discussions with Parishes ........................................................................... 22 Appendix 2 – Summary and list of meetings with key stakeholders ..................................................... 23 Appendix 3 – Overview of the Electoral Register system ..................................................................... 26

Executive Summary

TCB Consulting was engaged by the States Greffe to review the way that registration of electors is done in Jersey. TCB looked at what is being done in the rest of the world, how best practice could be applied to Jersey and outlined the recommended approach for Jersey. TCB also canvassed all the parishes and the other key stake holders in the States to gather their views, answer their questions and to try to pre-empt problems with the proposed changes.

TCB recommends that Jersey goes for automatic and permanent elector registration, making best use of the new People Directory being developed by the e-Gov programme whilst retaining the central role of the parishes in owning the electoral registration system and data, as soon as the dependencies identified are in place. Almost without exception, this recommendation was supported by the parishes and other key stake holders in the States. TCB advise against taking the same half way measures as the UK did if the dependencies are not in place in time. The Individual Elector Registration initiative in the UK has turned out to have a detrimental effect on percentage of electors registered.

Rebuilding the current Electoral Register system is not a complex task and could easily be accomplished in time for the 2018 elections as long as the dependencies identified are in place. The order of magnitude of the cost is £20,000 to £25,000 and it is likely to take six months from start of project to delivery for UAT.

The key question is whether the dependencies will be in place in time. The current plan is that they should be in place but there should be a backup plan in the event that they are not. The backup plan is to make a decision as to whether the dependencies are in place at the point where the current household forms are prepared and sent out. If they are not, the election should be held using the old Electoral Register and process but be augmented by identifying Citizens who look eligible from the People Directory point of view as and when the People directory becomes available. If the new system is capable of being implemented for 2018 paper forms should still be sent out in 2017 as part of a dual running exercise, to mitigate the risk of technical problems which could undermine the integrity of the election.

Brief

Overview

The Greffier of the States, Dr Mark Egan, together with the eGov Business Change Director, Jonathan Williams asked TCB Consulting Limited to produce a proposal to look at the best methods of achieving online elector registration, including how this can be achieved in time for the 2018 election.

Objective

The aim is to recommend a mechanism to allow as many as possible verified, eligible Jersey citizens to register to vote online in a verifiable and auditable fashion. The mechanism should have the broad agreement and support of all key stakeholders.

Approach

Research best solution

We looked at what is being planned and implemented elsewhere in the world and combined this with current and future capabilities of eGov in Jersey to show how the present system can be replaced with an electronic system that is better suited to current needs. We also looked at the options for how elector registration can be authenticated to allow the removal of the legislative requirement for a signature.

Implementation options

We looked at the best solution and the options to implement it. We investigated whether the solution could be implemented by enhancing the existing system and looked at the feasibility and scale of building a new solution from scratch. We have proposed a solution that may be implemented in time for the May 2018 elections (subject to dual running with the current system), so long as certain dependencies on other systems and actions are addressed. The new system can certainly be in place for elections held from 2019.

Scope

As instructed we did not consider the political risks or legislative change required as constraints to implementing the different solutions. We have polled as many of the key stakeholders as possible, including all of the parish secretaries, and received a positive response which should significantly ease any subsequent political process. We have also listed the legislative changes needed as dependencies for the ideal solution.

Research the Best Solution

Research was undertaken to look at the different ways that elector registration is handled in other countries. There are a number of nuances but fundamentally there are three approaches: household registration; electronic registration; and automatic registration.

UK – Electronic registration (recently moved from household registration)

In the summer of 2014, the UK changed voter registration from household registration to individual elector registration (IER).

The Electoral commission supported this because "We support the introduction of IER because we believe it will address vulnerabilities in the current electoral registration process. It is also right that people are able to take individual responsibility for their own vote."

They say that "The overall accuracy of electoral registers in Great Britain has increased following the completion of the move to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) in December 2015.

The Commission reports that the local government registers on 1 December 2015 were 91% accurate and 84% complete."

The move to IER did not help to solve an ongoing problem. Those who were registered in the old system and could be authenticated against the work and pensions database were automatically transferred to the new system and people no longer need to re-register every year. But that has not solved the problem of the decline in the percentage of eligible voters that are registered as there is no ongoing process to automatically add electors as they become eligible (source: Getting the missing millions back on the electoral register by Dr Toby James). As people become eligible or move, they need to register/re-register. A huge amount of time, resource and education is being expended on this but there is no evidence to say that it is working.

Questions are now being asked in the house (29th June 2016, Volume 612 – 4.30pm) as to whether it is time to move to automatic registration. It appears from the transcripts that all parties are in favour:

"Being on the electoral register is the closest thing to having a civic contract. If someone is not on it, they cannot participate in the democratic process. Automatic electoral registration provides the opportunity to both reduce costs and improve administration, cutting down on bureaucracy and enabling everyone to exercise their right to enfranchisement. It is simple common sense, proposing a cheaper, simpler and more effective model. It places a responsibility on the state to do everything in its power to ensure that the electoral database is full and complete. It imposes a duty on the Government and public bodies to work together.

Automatic electoral registration proposes to make the system truly convenient for the citizen by integrating both national and local data sets, meaning that an individual's address details would be automatically updated according to trusted data sets. The trusted data sets would collate information at each point that a citizen interacts with the state, whether that is when they pay a tax, receive a benefit, use the NHS, claim a pension or apply for a driving licence. The walls between those data sets used to be sacrosanct, but they are falling away more and more as the Government emphasise security and anti-fraud measures.

These reforms would vastly improve registration and have been tested elsewhere. A very similar model operates in Australia with huge success. For instance, the state of Victoria has a population of 3.5 million and has 95% accuracy in its registration process. It does that at extremely low cost, employing just five members of staff who maintain the rolling register.

Rolling out this reform in the UK is timely for so many reasons. Greater Manchester has already submitted to the Cabinet Office its plans to pioneer the system of automatic electoral registration. It also has proposals for a pilot scheme. I sincerely hope that the Government support the plans and will introduce the primary legislation on data sharing necessary to ensure that the pilot can go ahead.

Voter registration should not be the responsibility of charities or NGOs, such as Bite the Ballot, despite their excellent work. It should be down to the state to do all it can and to ensure that everyone, especially the most marginalised, can access their democratic rights. The issue should be non-partisan. It is in all our interests to get more people signed up. Then we can all get on with our job, as representatives of political parties, to enthuse voters and to persuade them that we are worthy of their vote." Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Labour)

"May I start by remarking on the fact that the Government Benches appear to be particularly denuded this afternoon? I hope that is because Government Members support the proposition under discussion. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that, so far, no one has spoken other than to support the principle of automatic voter registration, and that not a single Member of the House is so

exercised to the contrary as to turn upthat alone might make him consider that this is an idea whose time has come. I hope that we will get a positive response from him." Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)

• Owen Thompson

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions on this important issue. It is particularly encouraging to hear agreement, at least in general terms, about the direction in which we need to travel to ensure that participation levels in elections of whatever nature across the country are as high as they possibly can be and that we do whatever we possibly can to remove the barriers that exist for so many people.

I am encouraged by the Minister's comments that some steps are being taken. I would like to see that happen a lot faster, but I accept that if we start talking about pace, that will at least be an entirely different argument from the one about whether change should happen in the first place. I very much look forward to seeing what other actions and proposals come forward. Many of us want to get to the point of being able to debate what type of automatic registration system we have rather than whether we should have one in the first place. I welcome his comments and I hope that yet further steps forward will be taken in the weeks and months ahead and we will get to a point where we can make decisions that will benefit millions of people across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered automatic registration in UK elections

Guernsey

Guernsey is still using the household registration form. It has implemented eCensus, an electronic census solution but the information in that is only allowed to be used for statistical purposes.

Europe - 50% automatic registration

In 15 of the EU Member States there is automatic registration for all electors. There are special arrangements for non-nationals but the principle has been accepted.

France

The French system appears to be migrating to automatic registration.

Administrative electoral roll review commissions meet for each municipality between September and February each year to add or remove voters. They can be added at their own request or by l'Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE) (automatic enrolment - mainly of people turning 18 who have been registered by their town hall for the Defence and Citizenship Day). They can be removed by INSEE (moved, dead, lost voting rights) or at the request of the municipalities. Municipalities report back additions and removals to INSEE who maintain the official register.

United States of America – moving to automatic registration

A new reform to modernize elector registration with the potential to dramatically increase registration rates is gaining momentum. Automatic elector registration has been approved in five states, and dozens more are considering following suit. Overall, 29 states plus the District of Columbia have considered measures in 2016 that would automatically register citizens who interact with government agencies and ensure that elector information is electronically and securely sent to election officials.

Automatic elector registration makes two transformative changes to elector registration. Eligible citizens who interact with government agencies are registered to vote unless they decline, and agencies transfer elector-registration information electronically to election officials. These two changes would create a seamless process that will be more convenient and less error-prone for voters, agency staff, and election officials. This reform has the potential to boost registration rates, clean up the rolls, save money, make voting more convenient, and reduce the potential for voter fraud.

In March 2015, Oregon was the first to pass a breakthrough law to automatically register eligible citizens who have driver's licenses (except those who decline). California's legislature passed a bill modelled on Oregon's law in September 2015, which was signed by the Governor in October. California estimates that the state has 6.6 million eligible but unregistered voters.

In 2016, Vermont and West Virginia's legislatures both passed automatic elector registration with strong bipartisan support and signed them into law in April. There have been many strong and bipartisan efforts across a majority of states to modernize elector registration. Connecticut approved automatic elector registration administratively in May, and the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill again, with strong bipartisan support later that month, which has gone to the governor.

The Garden State nearly joined these states: New Jersey's legislature passed the Democracy Act, which, in addition to making other pro-elector reforms, would have automatically registered every driver's license applicant, with an opportunity for those who did not wish to register to opt out. Gov. Christie vetoed that bill in November 2015. Had New Jersey joined California, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia in implementing automatic registration, 17 percent of the nation's population would live in states with automatic registration. Christie's stated reasons for vetoing the bill were that it would increase fraud and be too cumbersome and costly. These claims have very little support. It is felt that it was more likely that the extra electors registered would give his opponents and advantage at the next election.

Automatic registration is gaining momentum at the national level, as well. In July 2016, Rep. Robert Brady introduced a bill to automatically register eligible citizens to vote in federal elections when they interact with numerous state and federal government agencies; Sens. Patrick Leahy, Amy Klobuchar, and Dick Durbin cosponsored identical legislation in the Senate. This February, President Barack Obama called on legislators to "mak[e] automatic elector registration the new norm across America." In a campaign speech in June 2015, Hillary Rodham Clinton embraced automatic, universal elector registration for eligible citizens once they turn 18, and Senator Bernie Sanders introduced an automatic registration bill in Congress in August. Senator Sanders' bill was the second automatic registration bill introduced in Congress this year; in June, Rep. David Cicilline and 45

cosponsors introduced legislation requiring automatic registration for federal elections at all DMVs.

For more information on why states should implement automatic elector registration, see the recently released report, The Case for Automatic, Permanent Voter Registration (https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/case-automatic-voter-registration). This report urges adoption of the four components of a permanent registration system, with automatic registration as its central plank. The Brennan Center has also published a companion document, Automatic and Permanent Voter Registration: How it Works, which provides in-depth answers explaining how states can use existing technology to implement automatic registration.

As these reports explain, there are many ways in which states can implement automatic elector registration, and bills introduced this year vary in certain details - for instance, when and how an individual may opt out of registration. But all seek to reduce the burden on individual electors and

instead require the government to ensure that eligible citizens are registered. Most bills are limited to the DMV, though several provide for automatic registration at social service agencies in addition to the DMV.

Other countries

Other countries fall into one of the three broad categories. Each country seems to have slight variations but the consensus seems to be that if the building blocks are in place for automatic registration that is the approach to opt for.

Pros and cons of the options

Household registration

This is the current process in Jersey where the Parish sends each household a form every year that has to be filled in by the head of the household to show all eligible electors and signed by each elector then returned. The information from this form is then entered into the Electoral Register system. This used to be the most common process when there was no Citizens' database or there were Chinese walls between data held by different sections of the government.

Pros

• It canvasses all properties and picks up eligible electors that could otherwise be missed
• It is in the domain of the Parishes, who are closest to the public in their parish, and under their control

Cons

• It is a nuisance for the householder, usually filling in the same form year after year and getting the appropriate signatures when the information is already held by the States.
• It misses out people who are qualified to vote but who, for whatever reason, have not registered It is a huge administrative task for the Parish to update the system.
• There is no link to any other information held by the States (apart from the Land and Property Index – being replaced by CAF) so does not update automatically.
• There is little or no validation of the people registered or their eligibility
• It requires "wet" signatures. But has no other validation except the knowledge the parish officials have about their parishioners.

Electronic registration

This process has been adopted by the UK (Individual Elector Registration) which switches the focus from the household to the individual. There was an initial take-on exercise from the old, household based, system (following validation against the Work and Pensions database) but from now on, the only way to get on to the register is to register personally online.

Pros

• It is quick and easy to register (three minutes is the claim)
• It cuts out a lot of duplication
• It introduces a check against the work and pensions database to validate the person's identity and some of the eligibility checks
• It is seen as a step towards eGov
• It removes the requirement for a "wet" signature

Cons

• It needs digital ID in place
• It effectively allows opting out by simply not registering (even though in the UK, like Jersey it is mandatory to register)
• Experience has shown that it leads to a decline in the number of electors registered
• It is difficult to get on the register if you are not on the work and pensions database

Automatic registration

Automatic registration is the process of using information already held by the government to create and maintain a list of all people in the country that are eligible to vote. This is produced by extracting a list of eligible people from the Citizens' database and using it to create or compare against the Citizens recorded in the Electoral Register as eligible. The Electoral register becomes a rolling registration where an elector, once added, remains until removed or suspended. The Electoral Register system only holds information unique to registering electors. The rest of the information, such as name and address, is held centrally by the Citizens' database and accessed by the Electoral Register when required.

Pros

• All citizens are included (subject to residence requirements) unless they have no footprint with the government. Once a citizen has a footprint with the government they will be candidates for the electoral register
• It is as complete and accurate a list as the States can create
• There is little or no administrative overhead for the Parishes freeing their time to help their parishioners and to investigate anomalies in the Electoral Register thrown up by ongoing comparisons with the Citizens' database.
• It is easy to give citizens access to their information once there is a citizen's portal
• It removes the requirement for a signature in the majority of cases (which is particularly important in relation to people with disabilities which mean that they cannot sign the

registration form)

• It helps to improve the quality of the Citizens' database as the only way to be registered to vote is to create a footprint with the government through social security, tax, driver licensing etc.

Cons

• Eligibility criteria need to be held and accessible in electronic format. This could be an issue with residence criteria
• It needs a change of mindset to change to linking to a central Citizens' database rather than having a separate database containing electors' names.
• There is no automatic expiry of registration so there is a danger of electors who become ineligible lingering on the register. The likelihood of this drops as the completeness and accuracy of the Citizens' database increases with the integration of more States systems with the Citizens' database.

System architecture options

There are a number of different forms that an electoral register system can take. It can be a standalone system, integrated with the Citizens' database or a thin shell around the Citizen's database. The system can be off the shelf or bespoke. The options are discussed below.

Standalone Electoral Register System

A standalone system, with its own database of names, addresses and eligibility goes against the principles of "Tell us once" and eGovernment in general. Other countries that operate in this way seem to be looking for ways of moving away from it. It causes a large annual administrative overhead for government and unnecessary extra paperwork for householders. It has come about because up until now there was no alternative.

Electoral Register information in a Citizens' database

A single central database that holds reliable name and address information about all citizens in the country. This could be expanded to hold the rest of the information unique to the electoral register. The Electoral Roll would then simply be an extract from that database at an appropriate moment in time. There are two reasons this is not desirable. First, the Citizens' database is one of the core enterprise databases and as such should not be "cluttered up" with non-core information allowing it to be a single, reliable source of the truth. The Electoral Register system is just one of many systems that will feed off the Citizens' database. Secondly, it would make the electoral role an entirely fluid list allowing people to be added and removed with no audit trail and without the ability to fix the list at a point in time. Also there will be cases where the information proving a person's eligibility may not be recorded in the Citizen's database yet that person is still entitled to vote. Unless and until there is detailed tracking of a citizen's residency, there will always be cases where the system will not be able to know the residence history of a citizen.

Electoral Register system linked to Citizens' database

This involves a lean Electoral Register system linked to a Citizens' database. The Citizens' database supplies name and address information and all the functionality to add and maintain the information in it. The Electoral Register system needs to hold and maintain only the information unique to the Electoral Register e.g. Citizen ID to link to the citizen in the Citizens' database, the citizen's eligibility, voting district, eligibility for jury service, the need to protect their identity and their temporary removal from the register. This allows any citizen to be added to the Electoral Register either automatically from the Citizens' database or manually from the Citizens' database by the parish in the small number of instances where someone not on the database can demonstrate that they qualify to register. If a potential elector does not exist on the Citizens' database they will first have to be added to that before being added as an elector on the Electoral Register. It also allows a comparison to be run between the Electoral Register and the Citizens' database which will raise anomalies. This approach reduces the administrative overhead of the parishes, the paperwork of the householder whilst improving the quality and reliability of the information held in the Citizens' database.

Off the shelf or bespoke

The system can be an off the shelf package or built specially for the States of Jersey. The process should be to do a sweep of available packages once the form of the system and its method of integration with the Citizens' database has been decided. Available, appropriate packages can then be compared against the cost and risks of building a bespoke solution and an informed decision made as to the best approach.

Solution recommended for Jersey

The following is an extract from John Turner's Jersey Electoral Registration issues report for the Privileges and Procedures Committee. It is a useful place to start.

"Once the franchise has been established, the foundation of any electoral system is the process for registering electors. In this respect, unless the system provides for compulsory registration, it is important to differentiate between electors and voters. The former are those who have been registered and are entitled to vote; the latter are those who actually exercise their right to vote.

The primary issues to be determined in relation to this area are:

• The register
• The steps to be taken to compile and publish the registers
• Revision of registers
• Objections to register applications or entries
• Determination of register applications or entries
• Alterations or corrections to registers
• Verification of application to be registered
• Registration appeals
• Restrictions on use of registers
• Supply of information contained in registers"

Ideal solution

The best approach is for Jersey to aim for automatic elector registration as and when it becomes possible.

Automatic elector registration will use the People Directory to provide a list of citizens that fulfil the requirements to be an elector. This list can be extracted at any time and used to create and maintain a list of eligible electors in a lean Electoral Register system.

From all of our research into other countries and all the discussions we have had with stakeholders in Jersey, we have not found any evidence and only two high profile opinions that go against automatic elector registration. (See summary of discussions with all of the parishes in Appendix 1 and meeting notes with other key stakeholders in Appendix 2. The high profile opinions are from the governors of Illinois and New Jersey https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/automatic-voter-registration)

It seems that the main reason automatic electronic elector registration has not been adopted everywhere is the lack of a reliable Citizens' database, digital identity and the existence of Chinese walls between government departments that are now being dismantled as a result of governments' emphasis on security and anti-fraud measures. The only difference of opinion seems to be whether to allow citizens to opt out of being on the electoral register.

Dependencies

A key dependency for introducing the automatic elector registration process is having the necessary legal framework in place to allow automatic registration. The next key dependency is the People Directory being in place with sufficiently complete and reliable information. The third dependency is ensuring political, Parish and public support for the change.

Legal Framework dependency

Underpinning the eGov programme is a principle that data collected by a Department of the States for the provision of public services to a particular citizen may, under particular circumstances, be used by other Departments. This is the "Tell-Us-Once "principle where government will not ask the citizen for information it has already been provided with. This was acknowledged in the public justification of the Names and Address Register which supports the Housing & Work legislation of 2013. Telling the appropriate Department maintaining the Names & Address Register about changes of details would be a Tell-Us-Once' activity, saving both the citizen and the public sector time and expense in providing/collecting the same information to/in several different departments. In short the citizen delivers the update only once and the public sector ensures that the records are updated.

The Parishes, by retiring the citizen details part of the Electoral Register system and connecting the Register in future with the Citizens' database are acting as early adopters of the Tell-Us-Once principle.

In practice each Department has historically been bound by its own particular legislation, and by its own interpretation of data protection legislation. In some cases, this sensitivity of the Departmental information is reinforced by oath at the Royal Court. This has understandably created a reticence in the sharing of data between departments for fear of acting illegally.

The dependency is to prepare a legal agreement for data sharing between departments and with the parishes, either generically or on a case by case basis, framing any amendments necessary to the law, regulations or undertakings for the sharing to be enabled.

Assuming that the current residence requirements are retained, further work is needed on which data held by the States could best capture the two year residency requirements for voter registration. The requirement for people returning to Jersey to reside here for six months before they are eligible to vote cannot be effectively enforced because movement on an off the island by such people is not monitored by the States. Consideration needs to be given to whether that requirement should be retained and, if so, how it could be policed.

People Directory dependency

A Citizens' database is a fundamental component of the eGov Programme needed to underpin online transactions between the States and the citizens/parishioners.

It is not yet clear how the new "People Directory" currently in proof of concept by the eGov Programme will affect the use of Populus but it is understood that any Electoral Register system will interact with the People Directory as the Citizens' database. The current Populus system held in Social Security was matched very successfully with high accuracy against the Parish Electoral Registers and is likely to be used to populate the new People Directory. However, as the Populus Name and Address Register in Social Security is currently able to support the Parishes' requirements for providing an Electoral Register, it needs to be ensured that any future development or upgrade protects the data and functionality, preferably enhancing it.

The information in Populus would be sufficient to be used as the source of names and addresses for the Electoral Register but there are legal and technical obstacles to its use for this purpose. Additionally, the Electoral Register would eventually use the People Directory as its source of Citizen information so by using Populus in the first instance a second change would be needed as soon as the People Directory was ready introducing twice the risk and a significant extra cost.

Residence information may be available as part of the Citizens' database but it is unlikely to be particularly up to date. Consideration needs to be given as to where this information is most reliably sourced. It is not currently held and there are no plans to hold it electronically in the manner required to satisfy exactly the current A and B statuses required under the current law.

The People Directory with complete, reliable and trusted information about citizens, legal and service level agreements all need to be in place for this dependency to be satisfied.

Parish and public dependency

The Parish is generally accepted, both socially and politically, as an important part of the life of the island and has long been associated with the ownership of the Electoral Register.

In practice the general updating of the Parish Electoral Register following the current process is time intensive. As such the general ongoing maintenance and updating of the names and addresses of residents by another Department might actually remove the need for additional cost at parish level and free parish officials' time to less administrative and more parish focussed work.

The role of the Parish in producing the Electoral Register is key:

• Each Parish should retain accountability for the production and maintenance of the Parish Electoral Register.
• The overall validation of the Parish Electoral register data, for the purposes of the Electoral Register, remains the accountability of each Parish. In other words, the Parish would ultimately decide on the validity of a potential elector's registration. It might do this using information & data collected by the States Departments responsible for entering it in the system, and supplement it with its own enquiries but ultimately the Parish, not another Department retains the decision.
• The States Department managing the Citizens' database (Populus and/or People Directory)" must accept accountability to the Parishes for the general day to day management of both the system and data. This could be managed using a service level agreement
• The electoral registration system in its new, leaner form will continue to be owned by the Comité des Connétable s taking advantage of the reliable, more complete record of Citizens provided by the People Directory owned by the States of Jersey.

A set of principles and safeguards concerning the maintenance of the Electoral Register as a database connected to the Citizens' database should be drawn up for consideration of the key stakeholders.

The Parish Hall is one place that parishioners look to change their details, for example name, address, telephone, email etc. This is because parishioners interact with their Parish Hall regarding rates, driving licences, dog licences and other sundry local matters. This relationship is recognised in the consultation that the eGov "Tell-Us-Once" programme is holding with the Parish representatives.

For the Parish to be able to act effectively as the source and validation for changes of citizens/parishioner details its staff need to be able to access and make changes to that citizen's records. In effect this means that the Parish staff are taking (or maintaining) a responsibility to validate and update changes to parishioners' records.

Therefore, the Parish administration staff needs a process and access to the database in order to be able to input changes or submit a request for changes to be made and check that changes have been correctly made.

A decision needs to be made as to whether Parish staff will be allowed to update the Citizens' database directly or will need to submit a request for a change to a central group tasked with ensuring reliability of the data in the Citizens' database. If Parish staff are given the rights to update one might expect the Parish staff with access to be subject to the same policies and procedures (including the oath in the royal court). In addition, an access log showing who accessed which record should be created. If they have to submit a request to change data, a clear audit trail should be available to them to see the status of their request and the ultimate changes made or not made (with reasons) as a result of it.

Summary of impact and probability of Dependencies not being in place in time

Authentication

In this recommended option for Jersey, authentication of an individual elector is not required at the point of registration. The necessary authentication takes place as the citizen interacts with any of the States' systems feeding into the Citizens' database. This streamlines the process still further and engineers out the need for a wet signature (which in itself is a very weak form of authentication) rather than replacing it with a digital alternative.

When a voter goes to vote currently they are asked to show their ID before being given a ballot paper. This process makes perfect sense and there are no plans to change it. This means that there is a physical check by the Electoral Officers of a voter's identity at the time of voting which lowers the risk of unentitled people being able to vote.

Solution for 2018 elections

The best solution for the 2018 elections depends whether the Citizens' database has enough information in it to at least reproduce the current electoral role in terms of all the people required and their eligibility. If it does or will by mid-2017, then the best solution is to move to automatic registration as soon as possible. From John Turner's work, it is apparent that there is a lot of consistency between the current Electoral Register and Populus (the precursor to the People Directory). But it seems there are up to 35% of people that are on Populus that are not on the Electoral Register. Clearly further investigation is needed to see how many of these would be eligible but it is felt that it is a significant number.

If it is not possible to get the dependencies in place in time for the elections in 2018, it would be tempting to look instead at following the UK's Individual Elector Registration (IER) initiative as a half- way house. Experience has shown, however, that IER has led to a decline in elector registration and a steep rise in time and money spent on trying to get individuals to register. From Jersey's perspective such a step could be seen as backward as it would involve cost to put IER in place then more cost to encourage people to register only to move towards lower percentage of registration of electors.

In order to move to a new system in time for the 2018 elections, the People Directory needs to be in place and populated by September 2017. The risk of relying on the People Directory being in place in time is that we could end up with no valid Electoral Register in place for the 2018 elections whereas the advantages gained by the People Directory and therefore the new process and system being in place are that there is a more complete list of electors for the election. Whilst this is desirable, it is far outweighed by the possibility that there is no electoral register if things don't go according to plan.

In discussions with the Head of Information Management and Security and his team it seems likely that the People Directory will be in place by the end of 2017 but by no means guaranteed.

Option 1 – new process and systems for 2018 election

Proceed with making the changes to law and parish processes and designing and building the new lean Electoral Register system connected to the People Directory. Plan to send out the household forms to create the electoral roll for the 2018 elections: dual running is essential to ensure that the integrity of the election is assured in all circumstances. Have everything ready by Q3 2017 to support the creation of the electoral roll for the 2018 elections by means of the new system.

 Option 2 – Introduce new process and systems after 2018 election

Continue using the current process and system for the 2018 elections. When the People Directory is ready, do a comparison of the People Directory and the Citizens in the current Electoral Register system and provide the Parishes with lists of potential Electors that are on the People Directory but not on the Electoral Register that they can follow up. In addition, an online form should be made available so that the public can raise questions about their entry on the Electoral Register. The forms can be routed to the appropriate Parish to be handled in the same way as they would if the Parishioner came into the Parish or Public Hall with the question.

Whilst this sounds like a key milestone has been missed, if the new process and system are introduced immediately after the 2018 elections it will have the effect of not requiring the household forms to go out from 2018, massively reducing the administrative burden on the parishes. An additional advantage is that the new process and system will have up to three years to bed in before being relied on for the next island wide election in 2022.

Recommendation

We recommend that the States go ahead and build the new processes and lean Electoral Register system connected to the Citizens' database outlined and make the required changes to the law and parish processes on the premise that all dependencies will be in place. The work all has to be done at some point anyway. Then if at the drop dead date the dependencies are not in place, revert to the old process and system to produce the 2018 Electoral Register whilst continuing to build the new processes and system to be installed as soon as possible after the 2018 election. We need to plan for the most likely eventuality which is that the dependencies will not all be in place in time.

Once the Citizen's portal is available, a mechanism for allowing Citizens to check their eligibility to vote online should be made available.

The new processes and systems would support a change in law and political will to allow voters to vote anywhere in the island, which could also be achieved under the current system of voter registration.

Stake Holder Responses

Parishes

Initially we decided to conduct a sample of Parish views about Electoral Registration options and to explore opinion on On-Line voting. However once we started the process with Sue de Gruchy and Jerry Collins and subsequently with Len Norman, we decided it would be useful to meet with all the Parish secretaries. A summary spreadsheet titled Parish Poll Summary 2016 can be found in Appendix 1.

Automatic voter registration

The overall result was a resounding preference for mandatory, automatic electoral registration, in other words the Parishioner and the Parish "do nothing". The system would produce a list of eligible voters as and when the Parish required it, e.g. for a Parish Assembly, or at a time agreed to produce the list for a Parish or Island wide election.

In each case the Parish had concerns and issues with the current registration system. These included cost, resource required, complaints about the form and "why" from parishioners and in general it is deemed cumbersome. Naturally the Parish Secretaries want a robust system that enables them to maintain a level of control and access to make changes, for example renewing driving licences and the like. They could all see the benefits of an automated registration system including but not limited to: increased data accuracy, reduced cost, not requiring or maintaining a supplementary register and even the possibility of engaging more voters, as the current process does put some people off.

Online voting

All but one Parish (11/12) has a preference for Online voting with only St Martin having an issue with the concept. Jerry Collins is concerned that Online voting will encourage or bring about an increased risk of "patriarchal control", "coercion" and "bribery". He feels strongly that a senior family member might use this as an opportunity to force family members to vote in a certain way. I did suggest that having a system that allows vote changes would alleviate this didn't seem to convince him.

 The remaining 11 Parishes all felt Online voting would increase voter engagement, especially amongst the younger generation. 3 Parishes felt it would be beneficial to have paper ballots available for some Parishioners who have an aversion to any technology. They thought this could be managed using scanners on the day, however they are open to supporting a full technical solution if simple and bomb proof.

Other benefits mentioned included better and faster voter statistics, improved pre polling, improved service, especially to those Parishioners wanting to vote at their Parish Hall and importantly quicker and more accurate vote counts.

In summary the Parish Secretaries are very supportive of both automatic and mandatory electoral registration, and very much in favour of online voting subject of course to robust processes and technology that allows them to maintain and improve the services they provide.

TCB have arranged to present a summary of the work done to date at the next Parish Secretary meeting on October 18th and to collect any additional comment that might have been missed from these meetings.

Other Stakeholders

The overwhelming opinion of the other key States Stakeholders was that automatic, permanent elector registration is the obvious solution. See appendix 2 for more detailed notes.

Outline Costs

A few changes are needed to current systems to support the proposed new process.

Citizens' Database

The Citizens' database is most likely to be provided by a combination of central databases, notably the People Directory and the Common Address File.

- Provide a mechanism to allow the Electoral System to connect an Elector to the correct Citizen record in the Citizens' database

- Provide an application programming interface (API) to allow the Electoral System to read demographic and address data from the Citizens' database

- Notify relevant changes to the Electoral Register system

- Accept requests from or allow access to the stakeholders using the Electoral Register system to change data in the People Directory

Electoral Register system

The Electoral Register system becomes a database of links to citizens who are electors past, present, temporarily suspended and future with the minimum set of information crucial to the electoral register stored in it. The core information about citizens is read from the Citizens' database.

See Appendix 3 for an overview of the proposed new lean Electoral Register system connected to the Citizens' database.

Steps required to upgrade the Electoral Register system;

• Re-write in current technology. (This would be more cost-effective than trying to make necessary changes to the existing system in 10+ year old technology)
• Remove demographic data from the system and replace it with a link to the Citizen's database.
• Remove the connection between Electoral Register and the LPI and rely on the connection between People Directory and CAF
• Build screens to pull demographic and address information from the People Directory and CAF and the information unique to the Electoral Register system from the Electoral Register database
• Add the functionality to accept changes from the People Directory and reflect them in the Electoral Register and log the changes. The key changes relevant to the Electoral Register would be those to do with qualifying periods of residence, movement between voting districts and possibly centrally applied exemptions from or additions to the register.
• Re-produce the various reports currently provided by the Electoral Register system.

Assuming that the majority of the functionality required in the Citizens' database will be available as part of the ongoing eGov Tell Us Once programme we have excluded the cost of those changes here. The cost of the changes required to the Electoral Register system is approximately £20,000 to £25,000. An allowance has been made for integration with the People Directory. The design of the People Directory has not yet been finalised so this allowance will have to be revisited when it has. Some work will need to be done to the Tirage system which pulls information from the current Electoral Register system to produce lists of potential jurors. The work required will also depend on the design of the People Directory.

Proposed Timescales

These timescales cover the steps required to bring in a system to support automatic elector registration and as instructed exclude the legal, political and marketing processes that will have to go on in parallel.

Drop dead date for decision to use the new processes and system is likely to be September 2017 – to be confirmed. It is likely that the household forms will need to go out around November 2017 and processed during November and December 2017 if we are to use the old process.

Appendix 1 - Summary of discussions with Parishes

 TCB Consulting | in partnership with Ascent Software

Appendix 2 – Summary and list of meetings with key stakeholders

As suggested in the project brief we have tried to engage with as many stakeholders and people who touch the electoral process as possible.

The projects objective - provide decision makers with guidance on the best methods of achieving online voter registration, including how this can be achieved in time for the 2018 election. In addition, online electronic voting should be recognised as a next step, for the 2022 election.

The meetings focussed on stakeholder opinion about voter registration options and issues that exist with the current process. In virtually all cases mandatory automatic voter registration is the preferred option. This is re-enforced by the Tell-us-Once, Information Systems Director (People Directory) and Digital Security. In addition any view that suggests the Parishes would not be in favour of mandatory registration is unfounded, the results of the Parish poll can be found in the appropriate Parish section.

Our initial meeting with Len Norman was more about us informing him of this project and of course to get his views. These are covered in more detail in the Parish poll. Needless to say he is keen to see the Parishes retaining ownership of the Electoral lists and finding ways of increasing Parish engagement with citizens. Subject to having robust and reliable systems in place his preference is for mandatory registration.

We arranged two meetings with Digital Security and Web Services, these were very informative and detailed the current projects, the outcome of which will allow access to the States of Jersey Portal and citizen services. It is envisaged one of these services would allow a citizen to vote online, or allowing access to a gov.je voting page with the use of Digital ID. The Digital ID team have been doing their own research into various jurisdictions and their registration and voting systems. They are planning to be in Beta test with the chosen Digital ID solution in March 2017.

Another highlight of our meetings came with Jean Claude Joly, he was extremely positive of the idea of using the People Directory as the source for registered voters. It was his view that this Directory, together with a small electoral database that holds the eligibility criteria and references to other SOJ systems , would form the basis of automatic registration and in future online voting. His opinion, shared by TCB, is that a simple report is run by parish to list all eligible citizens at any time, for example a Parish Assembly or an island wide vote. Each time the list is produced it is owned by the Parish for an appropriate purpose. This list will always be the most up to date as all SOJ "touch points" would keep the directory current, for example a driving licence change or Social Security benefit payment. In other words the People Directory will be the master source of citizen names that will feed all other systems including Rates, Electoral, Tell us Once, Digital ID and Self Service areas.

Our discussion with Sam Goulding provided an overview of current eGov projects and thinking. He believes 3 technical options exist for a voter registration system:

1  Update the current Electoral system to interface with CAF

2  Use the People Directory

3  A new electoral system linked to the People Directory.

Sam stressed the importance of having one type of common online form that could be used to update the People Directory by all Departments including the Parishes. In other words only

 TCB Consulting | in partnership with Ascent Software

authorised access and a form that helps ensure data being passed to the People Directory is as accurate as it can be.

Tell US Once , Manuel Saenz, confirmed processes are in place or being designed to ensure data sharing is increasing. Currently Populous is used to store citizen names, this is being used by a number of Registers including Births, Deaths, Marriages, other access areas cover new residents (Soc Sec, income Tax, Population and Health) these are due soon. He added that he has responsibility for the SOJ Citizen Portal which will be based on the Firmstep platform, his view is it will be very simple to add on line registration and election voting to the Portal.

We met with the Design Authority who were happy to support mandatory registration and on line voting at a personal level.

A couple of sensible questions came out of our discussions, firstly, a number of Parishes asked about cost and who would pay for the replacement system and any devices that would be required in voting stations (assuming online voting is available 2022). Secondly, a number of stakeholders asked "who would own the system?" and "who would own the data?" Our view is the Parish could own any list of eligible voters it required, the system to hold the voter eligibility data is more complex as this could be used for Triage Jury as well as holding other criteria data.

Below is a list of our meeting dates and attendees, the detail of which have been incorporated into the main report or the Parish Poll.

Meetings attended

14th July

Dr Mark Egan and Sam Goulding

15th July

Sam Goulding – eGovernment Programme Manager

19th July

Connetable Committee - Sue de Gruchy, Jerry Collins

9th August

Len Norman – St Clement

Marcus Ferbrache – Digital Security and Web Services

11th August

Dr Mark Egan – States Greffier

23rd August

Marcus Ferbrache, Rob and Hazel - Digital Security and Web Services

24th August

Jean Claude Joly – People Directory - Jean Claude Joly – People Directory

Design Authority

7th September

Manuel Saenz – Tell us Once

9th September

Sadie Rennard- Le Sueur and Bernie Buesnel – St Saviour

14th September

Jane Egre – Senior Data Analyst – Social Security

15th September

Jonathan Williams – eGov Change Director

16th September

Dr Mark Egan – States Greffier

20th September

Angela Hickinbottom – St Brelade

Angela Goguelin – St Lawrence Sue Blake – St Mary

Sue Rodrigus – St John

Rebecca Maindonald – Grouville

22nd September

Martin Roberts – St Helier Alison Sweeny – St Helier

26th September Nicola Noble – Trinity

Jerry Collins - St Martin

4th October

Alison Batho – St Ouen Elizabeth Cheetham – St Peter

11th October

Jean Claude Joly – Information Systems Director Jane Egre – Senior Data Analyst – Social Security Christos Valerkou – People Directory

13th October

Sam Goulding – eGovernment Programme manager

14th October

Jonathan Williams – eGov Change Director

Appendix 3 – Overview of the Electoral Register system

 TCB Consulting | in partnership with Ascent Software