The Reform Party is questioning why some Seoul polling stations extended voting hours until 10 p.m. [1] during local elections on June 3, 2024 [2].
These irregularities raise concerns about the administrative integrity of the electoral process and whether individual officials can override national voting protocols. The party suggests that such unauthorized decisions could jeopardize the perceived fairness of the results.
Lee Jun-seok, leader of the Reform Party, said on social media that a meeting with the head of the election commission confirmed the extensions occurred without delegation of authority or retroactive approval from the Central Election Commission [1]. According to the party, the decision to keep polls open late was based on the sole judgment of one senior official within the Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission [1].
Beyond the timing of the vote, the party highlighted significant failures in ballot management. A shortage of pre-printed ballots forced staff to hand-write serial numbers on blank papers [1]. Because there were no established rules to prevent the duplication of these hand-written numbers, confusion ensued regarding the issuance of ballots [1].
A spokesperson for the Reform Party said the circumstances surrounding the 10 p.m. [1] closing time are a matter that must be thoroughly examined [1]. The party argues that the combination of unauthorized hour extensions, and chaotic ballot numbering, represents a systemic failure in the commission's oversight.
The issues were brought to public attention on June 11, 2024 [1], following the party's internal review and meetings with election authorities. The Reform Party continues to seek a detailed explanation of how a single official possessed the influence to alter polling hours across multiple stations without formal authorization from the central body [1].
“The extension was made on the sole judgment of a senior Seoul election-commission official.”
This dispute highlights a potential vulnerability in South Korea's local election administration, where decentralized decision-making may clash with strict central mandates. If a single official can unilaterally extend voting hours and bypass the Central Election Commission, it creates a precedent that could be challenged in court or used to question the legitimacy of close election margins.
