Written By:
- Date published:
1:31 pm, July 25th, 2025 - 42 comments
Categories: david seymour, elections, electoral systems, paul goldsmith -
Tags:
I wrote this post a couple of months ago and prophesised that the Government would move to take away election day enrollments.
I mentioned that the proposal has shades of Donald Trump about it.
In 2020 he famously wanted to stop the count of votes as a late surge effectively removed him from office. And Republican attacks on the right to vote are numerous including a sustained attack on same day voter registration.
I also said that if you want to maximise the number of people voting then same day enrolments are a no brainer. But if you want to skewer things away from the poor and the young then you will remove it. Given that the poor and the young tend to vote left the intent behind this proposal is pretty clear.
Last election presented pristine evidence to confirm this. After the postal and late enrollment votes were counted National lost two seats, Te Pati Maori picked up two seats and the Green Party picked up one. Obviously National and its partner parties want to stop or minimise this happening in the future.
Parliament’s Justice Select Committee’s report report reviewing the 2023 election considered the question of election day enrolments.
National Party, New Zealand First, and ACT New Zealand members of the committee had proposed that the cut off date for enrolments be the day before election day.
The report records this response to the proposal from Labour and the Greens:
The Labour and Green parties strongly oppose any restrictions on the ability to enrol, including any restrictions on same-day enrolment. We know that approximately 110,000 people either enrolled or updated their enrolment details on election day (over 3 percent of the total vote cast). This is a very significant number of votes that could affect the outcome of an election and the constitution of the government. We consider any restriction on enrolment to be an effective disenfranchisement. We are deeply concerned with any suggestion that there should be changes put in place making it harder for people to enrol and vote. We consider that efforts should be made in the opposite direction—exploring ways to enable automatic enrolment and automatic updating of the roll, and improving the accessibility of voting places and voting more generally for everyone.
Fast forward to yesterday and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has announced that the Government will be introducing legislation into the house to change the cutoff date for enrollments, not to the day before as proposed by the Justice Select Committee, but to 13 days before.
And this is despite Justice officials warning that closing enrolments ahead of advance voting could result in lower turnout and reduce confidence in the electoral system.
From Radio New Zealand:
As part of a suite of Electoral Act changes, same-day election enrolments are set to be scrapped.
It reverses a change brought in for the 2020 election, which allowed for enrolments and updating details up to and including on election day.
It then goes even further, ensuring voters have to enrol or update their details before advance voting begins. The government is also legislating to require 12 days of advance voting.
The changes are primarily being made to improve the timeliness of the official vote count, and so give voters certainty of a result. The growth in the number of special votes has been putting a strain on processing a result, with the timeframe for a final vote count stretching into three weeks at the last election.
The justice minister said the uncertainty could be avoided if more people enrolled in a timely manner.
“We never know what the circumstances are going to be after an election,” Paul Goldsmith said.
“We don’t know what pressure the country will be under. An extra week, extra two weeks, if we do nothing could be longer, then that just creates extra uncertainty that we can easily avoid by people enrolling in a timely fashion.”
This is bollocks, to use a technical term. Coalition negotiations can proceed with the parties having to build in uncertainty into the negotiations. If there are any crises that the country faces then conventional caretaker understandings can be observed.
David Seymour has again let the cat out of the bag by describing people who enroll late as “dropkicks”.
He said:
“Frankly, I’m a bit sick of dropkicks that can’t get themselves organised to follow the law,” he said. “It’s actually made so easy to do, they even have a little orange cartoon running around telling people to do it. And if you’re too disorganised to do that over a thousand days between two elections, then maybe you don’t care that much.”
He has a clear world view. Young people, people whose accommodation can be transient and people who live busy lives where the niceties such as maintaining renrollment status are secondary are, according to him, dropkicks.
This is a cynical attempt to disenfranchise sectors of our community that are generally not supportive of the right. If the goal is to make sure that citizens can exercise their right to vote the Government would not be doing this.
There are about 15 months left before the next election, is it really that hard to get yourself enrolled sometime over the next 14.5 months?
Even if you leave it to just 4-5 weeks before the election, you will still get plenty of notice to enroll via the massive enrollment advertising campaign that will not doubt roll out well in advance of the election across all media platforms.
Not a big ask really, and a bit patronizing to suggest that some people will find this too hard
Why not let people enroll on voting day. Patronising to suggest that people who for whatever reason do not enroll before are somehow at fault.
If the govt's want to decrease voter turnout, then make no mistake, abolishing election-day enrolments will do it. Makes our self-serving CoC MPs look quite backward, imho.
"Seems remarkable…" indeed. And “half-witted blather” is generous – it’s witless blather.
Careful now RNZ, and careful now Prof. Geddis.
Cartoon depicts Prime Minister Christopher Luxon winding a clock. The key is labelled "100 day action plan" and the numbers on the clock are years in decades. Luxon is winding the clock backwards from 2023 to the 1840s.
With all the advertising across multiple media platforms only a dropkick would require enrollment on election day.
People in rented accommodation and those moving near election day could be effectively disenfranchised.
the idea that people should be more organised comes from people who are reasonably comfortably off and settled in secure housing; people who are not in precarious employment etc.
What about people who have emergencies and are hospitalised?
This move by the government is a cynical attempt, as Micky explains, to prevent those who are struggling to survive, people who have periods of homelessness, etc, and who are more likely to vote Labour, Green or Maori, from voting.
What about those who think they are enrolled, turn up on election day and then find they are not enrolled. Are you saying they should not be able to vote?
Is that wet whiny comment calling people dropkicks, from you Seymour?
I know DNFTT
If someone is legally entitled to vote at age 18, then their right to do so is impacted.
Those born on the 12 days after the cut-off will lose their right to vote, unless they can enrol before they are 18.
You can apply to enrol when you are 17. Your entitlement to vote will apparently take effect when you 18th birthday occurs
"If you're 17, you can fill out an enrolment form now. On your 18th birthday, we'll automatically enrol you and you'll be ready to vote. Easy. "
https://vote.nz/enrolling/get-ready-to-enrol/are-you-eligible-to-enrol-and-vote/
The issue then will be the effectiveness of automatic updating of enrolment details based on other records and voters being able to check.
"If you’re 17, you can fill out an enrolment form now. On your 18th birthday, we’ll automatically enrol you and you’ll be ready to vote" https://vote.nz/enrolling/get-ready-to-enrol/are-you-eligible-to-enrol-and-vote/ Not something I or my immediate family knew before I looked at that site.
You have about 15 months to prepare for this and ensure you are enrolled. If you cannot do it in that time, and I'm sure there will be multiple adverts and reminders to do so, then you really cannot complain about not having a say / vote. I believe the UK and Australia do this.
mickysavage asked a good question "What about those who think they are enrolled, turn up on election day and then find they are not enrolled. Are you saying they should not be able to vote?"
https://thestandard.org.nz/only-a-dropkick-would-want-to-make-voting-harder/#comment-2039630
They will receive a confirmation that they are enrolled. If they don't receive a confirmation they are probably not enrolled, If done within the next 12 months or so, no problem.
If they turn up to vote on election day, and have not received confirmation and are not enrolled, no they should not be allowed to vote.
What if people forget their EasyVote cards and what if the the eRoll system crashed, as it did in 2023? What if a voter has moved, been ill or infirm, or been in a hospital for over a year? So, you think that a voter who believes they are on the printed roll but their name is not on it does not have the right to cast a vote? That is unfair and undemocratic. People have a lot going on in their lives. So, why not make it easy to vote on the day? I don't think life is so cut and dried as you think it is. IMO, National knows it is in trouble, hence the undemocratic electoral changes. After all, a low turnout favours the right.
Mountain Tui wrote an excellent article on it.
"Paul Goldsmith’s voting electoral reform affects ~560,000 voters"
https://thestandard.org.nz/goldsmiths-voter-suppression-affects-20-of-voters/
"Enrolment changes could have 'significant' impact on democratic participation – Ministry of Justice"
"Justice officials say closing enrolments ahead of advance voting could result in lower turnout and reduce confidence in the electoral system. And electoral law experts are also questioning why the changes need to stretch for the whole advanced voting period."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/567950/enrolment-changes-could-have-significant-impact-on-democratic-participation-ministry-of-justice
You are making a three course meal out of a cheese sandwich. That is a lot of 'What if's'.
What if I crash my car on the way to the voting booth and get taken to hospital? What if I sleep in on voting day and forget to vote?
For example, we both have to get a WOF for our cars and have less than 12 months to do it and confirm that it is done. Will 12 months be enough time for you to do that?
You have longer than 12 months to get registered to vote.
Fewer voters = less democracy. The CoC's ban on enrolment in the final 13 days before an election is regressive and anti-democratic – even our Attorney General has concerns.
Still, the CoC is govt by the sorted, for the sorted – who needs pesky brown bottom feeding dropkick voters anyway? "Outdated and unsustainable" democracy is so wretchedly expensive in the current cost of living crisis.
Hmm, might Nicky No Boats' "everyday Kiwis" include ‘dropkick’ Kiwis?
That doesn't address anything from my post. Until the law is changed, it's legal to vote on the day, so why do you have a problem with that? And why do you have no issue with this government's proposal to remove democratic rights that would affect 560,000 voters? Refer to 4.1.1.1.
Well said Micky. I am outraged by this move. Surely the goal is to encourage people to enrol and vote which as citizens they are entitled to do. I am sick of the pious comments about those who don't enrol earlier. Elections often stimulate interest and that's a good thing – not everyone sits around going am I enrolled? Once enrolled they stay on the roll. Why are people so threatened by this? Oh yeah, that's right. There are other consequences to this change too. Ppl should read the whole proposal.
Hello MS. Fenton…. question for you on daily review…soon..
The CoC reckons 'extra democracy' is wretchedly expensive – you can have too much of a good thing in a cost of living crisis. And our CoC MPs aren't ‘governing’ just 'for the sorted' – they also have the very best interests of bottom feeders and dropkicks at 'heart'. /sarc
All these pesky 'extra' voters and votes eh – who needs 'em?
What is clear from all of this is that we need fewer reports and studies. /sarc x2
The history of the dropkick.
It ain't over till it is dunn.
after 20 minutes.
Count all the special votes.
What is apparent is that this is the start of the Nats play to really push down the electoral roll. This, and denying prisoners the vote, is just the beginning.
Two things:… won't the proposed automatic updates to the electoral roll from winz etc..etc…..won't this largely solve this problem/lead to a serious drop in special votes ..?..so no need for this b.s. from 'dropkick' Seymour..
And 'dropkick' Seymour must be his new nickname..surely..?
Make it stick..!
Oh for God's sake
Dropkick
Lazy
Disengaged………… etc
NO
They are NONE of those things.
People ARE ENTITLED to enroll and vote on election day, and so THEY DO.
(Sorry for the shouty vibes, I am so sick of Seymour)
Yep if you are entitled to vote then you should be allowed to vote.
This BS disenfranchisement process is really undemocratic.
Been thinking back to the post-election hiatus in 2023. On election night, it seemed a strong possibility that Nat/ACT would be able to govern without NZF. Then those damn specials rolled in, and hey presto! – they had to invite Winnie into the tent after all.
Now here he is apparently supporting a scenario which would most likely function to the benefit of his CoC partners, but could well result in their being able to manage without him …
(Yes, quite right – I've posted this comment already. But that was in yesterday's Daily Review where many people wouldn't have seen it. And the Luxon cartoon at 1.2 above was in that DR too, so I can cite a precedent.)
Mickey it occurs to me that all the "drop kick" talk draws attention & outrage is a successful distraction.
We need more journalists to accurately hold this government to account – besides ones here, at Newsroom, folks like Hickey and Campbell etc.
Yep. Andrew Geddis has a very nuanced but compelling analysis about what is happening.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-07-2025/changes-to-electoral-law-will-disenfranchise-thousands-and-may-not-save-any-time
Thanks.
Come to think of it, I suppose "old goal-post head" (as that hologram character is sometimes called) would have to use drop-kick as an insult some time or other!!
Democracy isn’t designed to be efficient: it’s designed to ensure everyone gets to have their say.
And elections aren’t just procedural exercises. They’re expressions of our collective will as citizens. When governments treat voter access as a threat rather than a cornerstone, they reveal a preference for control over consent. Especially when it's done in such a blatantly partisan fashion.
The success of our democratic process isn’t measured by how quickly we tally results, but by how deeply people feel invited to shape them.
The RW neo-authoritarians of the Coalition detest democracy and the democratic process.
Libertarians and their nebulous & nefarious elitist backers see it as on obstacle to freedom despite their fake claims of freedom & equality for all. They will do just about anything to remove rules & regulations and erode or twist laws that are intended to protect (the) people & environment.
Neo-liberals see it as an obstacle to unbridled profiteering, plundering of the environment, pestering the plebs (aka workers), and a brake on their malignant growth ambitions. They will use strict enforcement of law & order to protect their interests inside and across borders.
Conservative egotistical populists see it as a threat to their personal pedestals & protections and their feelings of moral, intellectual, and legal superiority. They will attempt to silence critics and pesky journalists and boast their own alleged achievements through their own unaccountable channels.
None of the CoCs particularly like democracy and/or egalitarianism and when they make such claims just follow the money, who benefits, and who abuses their (relative) authority, power, and (flimsy) social contract to get one up on & over others and at the expense of society (aka the great unwashed, ignorant mob, or pathetic plebs).
Oh I don't disagree.
What matters is not their motivations for doing it (it's the Gerrymandering, stupid), it's how we frame our response to it, and how we adjust our political strategy and tactics to adjust to it.
About half of the eligible and enrolled voters appear to be motivated still (!!) to vote for the Coalition. That’s what matters most, if/when we still have open & fair elections and an democratically elected government.
EVEN DROPKICKS ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE
Fight for dropkicks!
These are no dropkicks, just good decent people who wish to exercise their democratic right but who are thwarted by the Coalition.
Democacy is about maximising peoples ability to make choices. Removing same day registration removes this ability and by definition is anti-democratic. Welcome to the demon dimension.