The Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission discarded a ballot box from the Jamsil-7-dong 2nd polling station despite a court order to preserve it as evidence [1].
The incident raises serious questions about the integrity of election administration and the commission's ability to comply with judicial mandates. Critics argue the disposal of evidence, combined with discrepancies in ballot printing, suggests systemic mismanagement.
According to records, the polling station had 3,856 registered voters [2]. However, the ballot box indicated that only 1,900 ballot sheets had been printed [1]. This means only 49.3% of the registered voters had ballots printed for them [1], falling below the legally required 50% minimum.
The court had specifically designated the ballot box for evidence preservation to ensure a transparent review of the voting process. Despite this legal requirement, the commission proceeded with the disposal of the materials.
A spokesperson for the Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission said the agency was unaware that the specific box was on the court-ordered preservation list and followed standard disposal procedures [1].
Opponents of the commission's explanation argue that the failure to track evidence-preserved items is an unacceptable lapse in oversight. The discrepancy in the number of printed ballots further fuels suspicions regarding the legitimacy of the process at the Jamsil-7-dong site.
Legal observers note that the failure to preserve evidence can hinder the ability of candidates or citizens to challenge election results through the judiciary. The commission has not yet detailed how the communication breakdown occurred between the court and the disposal team [1].
“The Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission discarded a ballot box... despite a court order to preserve it.”
The failure to preserve judicial evidence and the printing of ballots below the legal minimum threshold create a vulnerability in the democratic process. If the Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission cannot maintain a chain of custody for court-ordered evidence, it undermines the legal mechanism for auditing election results and may lead to increased public distrust in the electoral system.




