of voting. In his justifications the President of the Republic pointed out that a voter who has the possibility to
vote by electronic means, has the right to change his or her vote given by electronic means either by voting
again by electronic means or by a ballot paper, whereas other voters who use other voting channels have no
possibility to vote again or to change their vote.
4. On 15 June 2005 the Riigikogu again passed the Local Government Council Election Act Amendment
Act, which the President of the Republic had refused to promulgate, with amendments. Proceeding from the
petition of the President of the Republic the Riigikogu decided to amend § 50(6) of the Local Government
Council Election Act, enabling voters to change their votes given by electronic means by voting again either
by electronic means or by a ballot paper from the sixth to the fourth day before the day of voting.
5. By his resolution No 873 of 22 June 2005 the President of the Republic refused to promulgate the Act due
to the continued conflict thereof with the principle of uniformity of local government council elections,
established in § 156(1) of the Constitution, as a voter voting by electronic means is accorded advantages in
comparison to a voter using other voting channels.
6. On 28 June 2005 the Riigikogu again passed the Act, which the President of the Republic had refused to
promulgate, unamended.
7. On 12 July 2005 the President of the Republic refused to promulgate the Act and had recourse to the
Supreme Court for the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Act.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC AND THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE
PROCEEDING
8. In his petition the President of the Republic is of the opinion that the amendment to the Local Government
Council Election Act, establishing the right of a voter to change his or her vote given by electronic means for
unlimited number of times during the time allocated for advance polls, is in conflict with the principle of
uniformity of local government council elections, established in § 156(1) of the Constitution, which requires
that each person with the right to vote has one vote and that all persons have been given the possibility to
vote in similar manner. The principle of uniformity means that a voter can vote but once, that his or her vote
is taken into account but once when counting votes, and that the vote does not become distorted in the course
of voting. Through the possibility to change the vote given for unlimited number of times the contested Act
accords advantages to voters voting by electronic means in comparison to the voters using other voting
channels, as the latter lack the possibility to vote again or vote differently.
The justification that the possibility to change the vote given by electronic means for unlimited number of
times helps to prevent purchasing of votes when voting via the uncontrolled medium of Internet and
guarantees the freedom of voting, is not appropriate. The possibility to change, during advance pools, for
unlimited number of times the vote given by electronic means, established for the protection of the freedom
to vote and secrecy of voting, must not infringe upon other electoral principles protected by the Constitution.
9. The Constitutional Committee of the Riigikogu, expressing its opinion on behalf of the Riigikogu, points
out that the possibility to change electronic votes serves the aim of guaranteeing the freedom to vote and of
guaranteeing the uniformity of voting through preventing the purchasing of votes.
The principle of uniformity means that all voters have equal possibilities to affect the voting results, i.e. an
equal number of votes will be taken into account per voter. The principles of uniformity and generality in
their conjunction require that the participation in voting, guaranteed to voters, be as convenient as possible.
New voting channels serve the aim of increasing the participation in voting and thus protecting the
representative nature of representative bodies.
The principle of uniformity does not mean that all votes should vote using exactly the same channel. All
those who use different channels of voting are, in fact, in a somewhat different situation, and so far this has
not been deemed to be in conflict with the principles of democratic elections. From the point of view of