Today’s decision voids a landslide victory for a team of political newcomers and triggers a byelection.

A court has voided the Papatoetoe local board election after finding its results were likely impacted by widespread voter fraud.

Labour candidate Vi Hausia petitioned the Manukau District Court to strike out the results of the contest to represent the Papatoetoe subdivision of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe board after allegations of irregularities including “nightly vote stealing” in the lead-up to October’s local body elections.

In his decision issued this afternoon, judge Richard McIlraith found in Hausia’s favour, saying it’s likely fraudulent voting “permeated or infected” the election to such an extent it materially affected the outcome.

“I declare the election of local board members for the Papatoetoe subdivision of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe local board void. A new election will now have to be held.”

Read more about the case: In court, they opened up 53 wrongfully cast ballots. Fifty of them had gone to the winning side. Hayden Donnell was there.

Suspicions were first raised over Papatoetoe’s board results after the area recorded a 7.5% uptick in turnout for the election, in contrast to dropping numbers everywhere else in Auckland. 

All four of the board seats were won with large margins by political newcomers the Papatoetoe-Ōtara Action Team, despite candidates from previous elections largely maintaining their vote counts. 

The anomalous result raised eyebrows in the subdivision. 

In court, Hausia’s lawyer Simon Mitchell buttressed those suspicions with evidence.

He established at least 79 votes had been wrongly cast by someone other than the intended elector – though in his decision McIlraith went further, noting the votes were fraudulently cast.

Of those, 53 were from Papatoetoe constituents who thought they hadn’t received their voting papers and went to lodge a special vote, only to find they were already recorded as having cast a ballot. 

On 25 November, those 53 votes were opened in court to check who they’d been initially, and likely fraudulently, cast for. It was found 50 had gone to the Papatoetoe-Ōtara Action Team.

Lawyers acting for election officer Dale Ofsoske opposed Hausia’s petition, arguing that the 79 irregular votes weren’t enough to show the election’s result had been materially affected.

But in his decision, McIlraith disagreed, siding with Mitchell, who’d argued it was extremely unlikely the irregularities were confined to the ones that had been established. 

In court, he noted turnout in Auckland was just 29%, and the wrongly cast ballots that had been discovered came from people who were sufficiently motivated to figure out how to cast a special vote and head a local library to fill out a declaration.

Those people were in all likelihood an unusually passionate minority, he said.

“Most wouldn’t have even noticed.”

Mitchell also put forward a number of extra facts from which McIlraith could infer the voter fraud established in court was just the “tip of the iceberg”, including that 3,254 extra votes had been cast in the area, 16 complaints had been referred to the police for investigation and all other candidates besides the successful team had expressed the same concerns as Hausia.

McIlraith’s decision said Mitchell was asking him to make an inference from the available facts.

“I accept the facts set out by Mr Mitchell and which he relies upon are proven,” it said. “I am compelled to make the inference Mr Mitchell submits is required.”

Speaking to The Spinoff following the release of the decision, Hausia said he had mixed feelings about the result. 

He felt vindicated by McIlraith finding in his favour, but said the case revealed deeply troubling frailties in the postal voting system. 

“At the very least, things need to change. If this is not a good enough reason to get rid of the postal ballot system then we’re literally just accepting this as a norm.”

McIlraith’s decision echoed those concerns, saying the irregularity “highlights a significant fragility in the postal voting system” that had long been a concern but had not previously crystallised.

He noted this was the first time such a large number of irregular votes had ever been been correctly identified by a petition of inquiry.

“We have here a situation of what can only be described as what appears to be large scale taking of voting papers with those voting papers being completed by someone other than the intended recipient. And, that is what is known.”

McIlraith’s decision will trigger a byelection. The date for that contest has not yet been set. A police investigation into the alleged fraud, running separately to this case, is ongoing.