## Facts

- A political party seeking to contest imminent national and provincial elections challenged provisions of the Electoral Act requiring a new bar-coded identity document for voter registration and voting.
- The challenged scheme excluded older identity documents issued under prior legislation.
- The party alleged the bar-coded ID requirement would prevent many eligible adult citizens—especially those holding only older documents—from registering and voting.
- The party also alleged government decisions about funding and election logistics unlawfully interfered with the independence and impartiality of the Electoral Commission.
- After the High Court dismissed the challenge, the Constitutional Court, due to urgency and public importance, heard the merits as if leave to appeal had been granted.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring a bar-coded identity document to register and vote infringed the constitutional right to vote and constitutional commitments to universal adult suffrage and regular multiparty elections.
2. Whether the documentary requirement was rationally connected to a legitimate governmental purpose related to electoral integrity and administration.
3. Whether governmental funding and logistical decisions impermissibly interfered with the Electoral Commission’s constitutional independence and impartiality.

## Decision

- The Court treated leave to appeal as granted and reached the merits.
- The Court upheld the bar-coded ID requirement as constitutionally valid.
- The Court held the requirement was rationally connected to legitimate purposes, including a free and fair election and a credible voters’ roll.
- The Court concluded the requirement did not unconstitutionally deny or infringe the right to vote.
- The Court rejected the claim that government conduct breached the Electoral Commission’s independence.
- The appeal was dismissed, with no costs order due to the public importance of the issues.
- A dissent would have found the requirement an unjustified limitation on voting rights in the circumstances of the impending election.

## Legal Principles

- Review of election-law measures affecting voting rights proceeds in two steps: (1) whether the scheme is rationally connected to a legitimate governmental purpose, and (2) whether, despite rationality, it infringes the right to vote.
- Legislatures may impose administrative preconditions for registration and voting if they are rationally aimed at making the franchise workable and safeguarding election integrity and are not arbitrary or unreasonable deprivations of the vote.
- Standardized identification requirements may be justified where they enable efficient verification and fraud prevention (including use of linked biometric records) and where alternative documents are materially less reliable.
- The constitutional independence of an electoral management body is not negated merely because it depends on the political branches for funding or logistical support; unconstitutional interference requires proof that government conduct compromised or dictated the body’s decision-making or operations contrary to its mandate.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld a bar-coded identification requirement for registration and voting as a rational administrative measure that did not unconstitutionally impair the franchise, and it found no unconstitutional interference with the Electoral Commission’s independence based on the challenged funding and logistical arrangements.


New Nat’l Party of S. Afr. v. Gov’t of the Republic of S. Afr., 1999 (3) S. Afr. L.R. 191 (S. Afr. Const. Ct. 1999)