Not all election results are straightforward
Not all election results are straightforward
Wednesday 17 December, 2025
The 11 October triennial local government elections may already be a fading memory as newly elected members settle in and try to absorb the impact of new central government policy initiatives affecting the sector. But the election process was not smooth in all districts and in some instances came under scrutiny.
Tight results
There were close races around the country, and one of the most interesting was in Kaipara District Council where three strong contestants came within a 31-vote spread in the preliminary vote count for the mayoralty and 43 votes in the official result.
Successful candidate Jonathan Larsen was just 21 votes ahead of Tane Snow, who requested a judicial recount under section 90 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA). However, the District Court Judge refused the application on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of “reasonable grounds to believe that the declaration is incorrect.” He said that reasonable grounds for a recount means more than just a narrow margin or speculation. The applicant must provide credible evidence suggesting the official result is wrong due to counting errors or irregularities in the vote tally.
The District Court also rejected two other recount applications in the Kaipara District elections. Both were by sitting councillors. Although applicant Mark Vincent lost the election for ward councillor in the Otamatea Ward by only two votes, the Court found the narrow margin alone did not meet the “reasonable grounds” threshold. In the Wairoa Ward, a recount application by Ash Nayyar who finished fifth behind elected candidates was also dismissed.
Petition for inquiry
Serious allegations of electoral irregularities in the election for the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board in Auckland resulted in the election being voided. Under section 93 LEA any candidate or any ten electors can file a petition in the District Court demanding an inquiry into the conduct of an election or the conduct of a candidate or any other person at the election.
Former Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board deputy chair, Lehopoaome Vi Hausia, petitioned for an inquiry under the LEA, alleging irregularities in the local board election. The allegations included:
- Statistical anomalies in voter turnout.
- Misuse of ballot papers.
- Irregularities with special votes.
- Discrepancies in voter records.
- Unlawful campaign activity.
- Weaknesses in the postal voting system.
The Papatoetoe subdivision had seen a turnout increase of 7% against a turnout drop in most other areas in Auckland, and all four seats were won by first-time candidates from the Papatoetoe-Otara Action team. This was sufficient for the District Court to order scrutiny of the voting papers.
At a hearing of the petition for inquiry on 8 December the Court heard claims that gangs had stolen voting papers from letterboxes and cast them without consent. Seventy-nine voting papers were allegedly cast without the rightful voter’s knowledge. No immediate ruling was issued, with the judge indicating that further evidence and scrutiny of ballots would be required before deciding whether to trigger a by-election. However, Judge McIlraith subsequently found there were irregularities that materially affected the election result and a new election for the subdivision will be held in the new year.
In addition, the Police are investigating 16 complaints of electoral fraud, including allegations of voting paper theft and voters being instructed how to vote at certain polling places.
Interfering with or influencing voters
It is an offence to interfere with any person voting in an attempt to influence their vote. Section 122 LEA applies. In the Auckland Council elections, a member elected to the Henderson-Massey Local Board was the subject of a complaint by a member of the public to Police that she had interfered with or influenced voters.
No details of the complaint were made available, but the Police confirmed they were investigating and subsequently that no indicators of criminal offending had been identified after further inquiries.
Judicial review on Māori ward poll
Alongside the 2025 local elections, many councils held polls on Māori wards. Whanganui and Manawatu District Councils were required to poll on whether Māori wards would exist in 2028 and 2031.
In Mair v Lampp & ors, the applicant sought judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, challenging decisions by the electoral officer, Mr Lampp, regarding these polls. Urgent interim orders were sought to prevent announcing preliminary or official results before polling closed, but the Court dismissed the application.
Background
Candidate profile booklets omitted information for Māori ward candidates. Section 62(1) of the Local Electoral Act (LEA) requires compliance with rules for distributing candidate profiles. The applicant challenged decisions not to send corrected information to electors in both districts and sought interim relief to maintain the status quo.
Issues
The Court considered:
- Jurisdiction: Section 86 LEA requires declaring results “as soon as practicable,” but the Court held this could be delayed by a valid order.
- Necessity: Despite section 93 LEA providing a post-election petition process, interim orders could still be necessary.
- Arguable Case: The applicant argued principles of the LEA, Te Tiriti, and tikanga required providing Māori ward candidate information to all voters because all could vote in the polls. Respondents argued section 62 does not apply to polls and that remedial steps would mislead voters.
Decision
The Court held that electors not voting in Māori wards have no legal right under the LEA to receive Māori candidate profiles, though this is not prohibited. Evidence that these profiles conveyed candidate calibre and views on the polls could require the electoral officer to consider section 4 principles. Treaty obligations were also relevant given findings of the Waitangi Tribunal and Human Rights Commission on the 2024 amendment mandating polls.
The Court found the applicant’s claim arguable, noting its significance for democratic integrity and Māori representation. However, interim orders were refused because the applicant failed to show they were necessary to preserve his position. Even if the polls were later declared void and re-run, Māori ward elections would not be repeated, so the omission could not be remedied through interim relief.
The Court emphasised that refusal of interim orders did not reflect on the merits of the substantive claim, which remains open for determination.
