Judge to Determine Outcome of Controversial Papatoetoe Election

The Manukau District Court is set to decide whether a controversial local council election in Papatoetoe will be voided due to allegations of significant voting irregularities. The case centers on claims of voter fraud that some argue could have influenced the election’s outcome.

During a court hearing on March 11, 2024, former Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board member Vi Hausia presented evidence suggesting that voting papers had been stolen and cast without the consent of legitimate voters. A subsequent court-ordered count revealed that 79 voting papers were identified as fraudulent. The allegations have raised serious concerns about the integrity of the postal voting system used in the election.

The election resulted in a surprising victory for the Papatoetoe-Ōtara Action Team, a group that has not publicly addressed the claims made in court. Kunal Bhalla, a spokesperson for the Action Team, has denied any unlawful conduct. Judge Richard McIlraith summarized the situation, stating, “The assertion is that people have been going around in gangs stealing voting papers.”

Simon Mitchell, KC, representing Hausia, argued that statistical anomalies observed in the election results pointed to widespread voter fraud. He noted that the voter turnout in Papatoetoe increased by 7%, while the rest of Auckland experienced a record low participation rate. Mitchell speculated that the 79 fraudulent votes might represent only a fraction of potentially 2,000 to 3,000 illegitimate ballots.

“The majority of those individuals would not think to check on their voting papers,” Mitchell explained. “Awareness of an election is not universal.” Judge McIlraith acknowledged the gravity of the allegations, cautioning that they should not be dismissed lightly, but he also questioned whether sufficient evidence existed to support claims of mass theft from letterboxes.

Mitchell pointed to a police complaint regarding the alleged theft of ballots and argued that the sudden increase in votes could not simply be attributed to a newfound interest in democracy. “If the irregularity didn’t arise that way, then something else has gone majorly wrong,” he stated.

Judge McIlraith recognized the potential implications of the case, suggesting that if the allegations were substantiated, it would reveal “everyone’s worst nightmare regarding the efficacy of the postal system.” He emphasized that organized theft of ballots would expose significant vulnerabilities within the electoral process.

While Hausia’s legal team called for the election to be voided, David Collins, representing electoral officer Dale Ofsoske, argued against this course of action. He pointed out that Hausia lost the election by approximately 1,200 votes, questioning whether the alleged fraud could have materially affected the outcome. Collins asserted that there was an “onus of proof” that Hausia’s petition had not met and dismissed some claims as “social media hearsay.”

Judge McIlraith challenged Collins, questioning whether the court would uphold the principles of the Electoral Act if it did not void the election. “This is a very serious underlying allegation of systematic removal of ballot papers from letterboxes,” he noted. “That has to be marked by some sort of condemnation, surely?”

As the hearing is set to conclude on March 13, 2024, Judge McIlraith indicated he would reserve his decision. He acknowledged that he was likely to find irregularities, but expressed uncertainty about whether these would warrant nullifying the election results. The Papatoetoe-Ōtara Action Team has been made aware of the court proceedings but has not submitted a notice of opposition.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for electoral integrity and public confidence in the voting process. As the court deliberates, the communities involved await a decision that could reshape their political landscape.