Time for a major overhaul of the election commission and early voting

Chang Se-jeong

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo. 

Public outrage over the fraud-ridden March 15, 1960, presidential election, conducted under an election commission controlled by the Interior Ministry, led to the April 19 Revolution and the collapse of the ruling Liberal Party. In response, the National Election Commission (NEC) was established in January 1963 as an independent constitutional body following a constitutional revision under the Park Chung Hee government. Its independence and authority were further strengthened through the democratic reforms of 1987.

Yet independence alone has never insulated the commission from controversy.

The April 1988 parliamentary elections, the first held after the return of single-member constituencies, became notorious for intense political competition and electoral disputes. According to former Prime Minister Lee Hoi-chang’s 2017 memoir, the commission frequently found itself confronting political pressure while attempting to uphold fair elections.

The chairmanship of the commission, traditionally held concurrently by a Supreme Court justice, has long been regarded as an undesirable position within the judiciary. Many justices worry that clashes with political forces could damage their careers. Even Lee, known for his independence, initially resisted the appointment before ultimately accepting what he described as a poisoned chalice. Nevertheless, the commission under his leadership demonstrated the courage to confront political interests and contributed to establishing a culture of fair elections.

Despite democratization, allegations of election fraud persisted. After losing the 1987 presidential election, Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung accused the government of manipulating the vote through administrative influence and money politics. Following Roh Moo-hyun’s victory in 2002, the Grand National Party alleged electronic vote-counting manipulation, prompting a manual recount of more than 11 million ballots by thousands of public officials.

After Park Geun-hye won the 2012 presidential election, journalist Kim Eo-jun fueled further suspicions through his documentary "The Plan" (2017), which examined allegations of vote-counting irregularities. Former President Yoon Suk Yeol became so influenced by election-fraud claims that after declaring martial law in December 2024, he reportedly ordered troops to the NEC in an attempt to seize its servers.

The commission now faces perhaps its gravest crisis. During the June 3 local elections, a shortage of ballots exposed serious administrative failures and raised questions about its competence. A joint police-prosecution investigation has searched commission servers, while commission chair Noh Tae-ak has been placed under a travel ban.

Anger has been especially intense among voters in their 20s and 30s. Protesters have gathered for more than two weeks near Olympic Park in Seoul’s Songpa District demanding a revote. University students have even issued an unusual political declaration criticizing the commission. Although election-fraud conspiracy theorists have joined some demonstrations, the frustration felt by many younger voters is understandable. Political leaders should quickly present a roadmap for resolving the crisis and restoring public trust.

The commission had already accumulated public skepticism through earlier controversies involving ballot handling and election management. This time, however, many voters believe their fundamental political rights were compromised. Under such circumstances, self-directed reform by the commission is unlikely to regain public confidence.

Does that mean the commission should be abolished?

Eliminating a constitutional body would require constitutional revision and broad bipartisan agreement. Such consensus is unlikely. Placing election administration under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety could expose the process to greater political influence from the president and ruling party. Any such proposal would require robust safeguards for neutrality.

A more realistic solution may be extensive remodeling rather than a complete demolition.

For example, judges should no longer simultaneously serve as election commissioners. Under the current arrangement, courts may face difficulties impartially handling cases involving an institution overseen by one of their own members. The commission chair and all commissioners should instead serve full time.

Because the Constitutional Court ruled against direct audits of the commission by the Board of Audit and Inspection, a separate oversight body staffed by outside experts could be created to ensure both independence and accountability.

Apart from conspiracy theories, public distrust of early voting has reached dangerous levels. The early-voting system should be abolished, or at a minimum reduced to a single day. If complete abolition proves unrealistic, out-of-district early voting should be eliminated to restore at least a basic level of confidence.

The immediate task is not simply repairing the commission’s image. It is rebuilding an election-management system capable of guaranteeing political rights while maintaining neutrality and public trust.