Response to interpellation 2025/26:86 on eligibility for elections to municipality and region
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that confidence in the electoral system is important and that changes in eligibility need to be investigated carefully with parliamentary anchoring 1. 2 3 M considers that they are working reasonably quickly and that the current process is an appropriate and legitimate democratic format 2 3. 3 M argues that the scope for action is limited as changes should not be made later than one year before an election 3. 4 5 S considers that the government should have acted faster since the problem has been known since February 2023 4 5. 6 4 5 S argues that the rules could have been changed during a mandate period 6 4 5. 7 S considers that the vulnerability in the electoral law does not become apparent until someone abuses it 7. 7 S thinks that what is reasonable is that one can stand for election in a municipal election and a regional election 7. 3 M considers that the loophole in the electoral law is now identified and that the issue is being taken forward in an orderly manner in a process where all parties are involved 3. 8 M argues that there is an agreement that the problem creates vulnerabilities and democratic problems for citizens and voters 8. 8 M is convinced that the work in a committee where all parties are represented will result in a way that is good in substance and has high democratic legitimacy 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Joakim Sandell has asked me when I and the government intend to return to the Riksdag with proposals in light of the Riksdag's announcement regarding eligibility to stand for election and population registration.
First, I want to emphasize how important it is that there is a great deal of trust among both the voters and the political parties in the electoral system, and that the system ensures correct and legitimate results.
At the 2022 elections, according to the Election Authority's experience report, candidates ran in the election in several different municipalities and subsequently retroactively registered their residency in the municipality where the candidate received a mandate.
The possibility of changing the conditions for one's own eligibility after election day risks affecting the voters' confidence in the elections. At the same time, it must be considered that issues regarding eligibility, nomination rights, and who may stand for candidacy in elections belong to the core of the electoral system. A changed regulation in this area therefore needs to be investigated thoroughly and with anchoring here in parliament.
The government therefore decided in June this year, in accordance with the Riksdag's announcement of an additional mandate to the parliamentarily appointed committee that had previously been tasked with conducting a review of the ballot system. The mandate means that the committee shall take a position on whether the rules on eligibility should be changed to prevent a person who stands for election to the municipal or regional council in several municipalities or regions from becoming eligible after election day because the person retroactively changes their civil registration.
The assignment shall be reported by August 14, 2026, at the latest, and I look forward to receiving the committee's conclusions.
When the investigation is complete and the referral bodies have given their input, the government will take a position on the committee's proposals and considerations.
Joakim Sandell (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. Here at Christmas time, I shall have to begin by stating that I am satisfied with large parts of the answer – perhaps 80 percent. That is not the best starting point for an interpellation debate. It is the end of the answer that perhaps is not quite sufficient.
I would like to take my starting point in an old motion from a party colleague to the Minister, Bertil Persson. In 1992, he wrote a motion to the Riksdag linked to events in the election in the Fyrstad constituency, as it was called then.
At that time, we down in the Malmö area had a local party called Skånepartiet. They printed up ballots with the designations Socialdemokratiska Arbetarpartiet and Moderata Samlingspartiet, sent them out to all households, and distributed them in the polling stations. The first name on these lists was the same name that topped the Moderaternas list and the Socialdemokraternas list, in the case of the Socialdemokraternas on the parliamentary list Lars-Erik Lövdén and on our municipal list Lars Engqvist. Unfortunately, I do not have a grasp of what name the Moderaterna had at the top, but perhaps the Minister can inform me of that. In second place, however, were persons from Sjöbopartiet. Then one filled in with candidates who in no way were connected to either the Socialdemokraternas or the Moderaterna, candidates who at that time were not in the party in question, candidates who were not consulted and asked to be removed but could not be removed, and so on. It was an obvious way to get around the four percent threshold.
Skånepartiet pointed out a vulnerability in the legislation. Bertil Persson, who was a Member of Parliament from Moderaterna, concluded his motion with the words: "It is important to have a legislative review that makes this type of action impossible in the future."
During the three-year mandate period 1991–1994, Sweden had a Moderate Minister of Justice, Gun Hellsvik. One saw the shortcomings that the legislation had in 1991 and managed to change this so that what was possible in 1988 and 1991 was no longer possible in 1994. That is the very core of the issue. As you have laid out the work now, it will be possible to behave in the same way in the election next year as it was in the last election regarding this. I actually think that we, in broad consensus, should have been able to manage to change the rules during the mandate period.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for the answer to this pressing interpellation by Member of Parliament Sandell!
This is a known problem. If it wasn't otherwise, it became very clear, just as the member has explained here, in the 2022 election. At that time, there were candidates who ran in a number of municipalities and then simply allowed themselves to be elected in the municipality where they had received a mandate and registered their residence there after the election.
The Minister for Justice says much in his response about the importance of broad agreements in these types of issues and the importance of them being prepared over a long period.
I remember that when I studied law in the law program in Lund, I studied the work preceding the 1974 Instrument of Government. That work took about 30 years, or 25 years in any case. One can call that a thorough process with a number of committees. One of them was led, for example, by the former Prime Minister Rickard Sandler. It was a thorough piece of work.
It could have held as an argument even here if the government were keen on having long processes in all matters concerning the Instrument of Government. That is not the government. In this case, the argument has obviously been used that precisely this issue needs to be prepared over a very long period.
As Member Sandell explained, previous changes have been able to be handled during a single parliamentary term, and even during shorter terms than the four-year periods we have now. The terms were three years back when a Moderate Minister of Justice handled similar issues in a very short time.
The Minister also refers in his answer to the Election Authority's report which arrived on 15 February 2023. That means that this problem has been known in any case since 15 February 2023, unless it was observed already the day after the election day in 2022.
Just as Member Sandell has explained here, the lack of action will enable us to see similar tendencies in next year's election. We may see individuals who run for regional council and municipal council in a number of different regions and municipalities and then choose to register their residence where they are elected.
If the government had been a bit quicker and taken into account the report that arrived on 15 February 2023, this could have been remedied during the time thereafter.
One must have great respect for constitutional issues, and one must have great respect for changing the Instrument of Government. One must deliberate on those issues over a long period and strive for parliamentary consensus. But the willingness to deliberate on issues over a long period cannot be selective.
If one can be quick in other matters, and has been able to be quick in this type of matter previously, I can agree with Member Sandell that this issue should have been resolved significantly faster than what now appears to be the case.
We can observe that we will see that the problem persists during the 2026 election. I find that most regrettable.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you both to Member Sandell and Member Magnusson for the opportunity to discuss this pressing issue.
First and foremost, here at Christmas time: If the Social Democrats and the opposition are 80 percent satisfied, I must still say that I am also quite satisfied overall. That must be considered a fairly broad consensus, and moreover, in a fundamental constitutional issue.
I am also very satisfied and happy that the highly esteemed and very combative Moderate MP Bertil Persson, who nevertheless left the chamber a number of seasons ago, is now being mentioned in this fine context.
When it comes to the issue itself, we are fundamentally in agreement on the facts. What are the facts? It is that the Committee on the Constitution gathered together for an announcement in May last year.
It is clear that we can refer to thirty-year preparation processes in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. But however I turn and twist the mathematics, I still manage to get a somewhat shorter preparation time, if I view it in the light of last year's announcement.
We are now underway, if I am to take the question somewhat seriously, in the way that a question about the electoral system should, after all, be handled. It should be handled in an inquiry, and that is what is happening. It is being handled in an inquiry where all the parties behind the motion in the Committee on the Constitution are also on board.
I am glad for the reminder that things can be done faster. I shall, as they say, remember that when it tightens up for other processes during the spring. I still think that we are working quite quickly.
The announcement from KU arrived in May last year. An investigation into the issues will be reported by the summer. Hopefully, it will be a handling of the issue where all parties that stood behind the announcement are also on board when it comes to the handling moving forward.
Joakim Sandell (S)
Madam Speaker! We are actually in agreement on the issue itself. We think that the behavior displayed in the last election is deceptive. Unfortunately, it was not just isolated cases.
The Election Authority noted that in the elections to the regional councils, there were 17 candidates in six different parties who did this. In the municipal council elections, there were as many as 80 candidates in eleven parties who behaved in this obviously fraudulent manner.
Sometimes it is the case that we reach a broad consensus here in the chamber regarding how we should handle the electoral laws and the general elections, but one might then not always think of the parties that do not exist in the chamber today but which run in general elections. This applies as much to local and regional elections as to parliamentary elections.
Therefore, it is extremely important, I think in any case, not to give them the opportunity to behave deceitfully towards the voters on more than one occasion if there is a loophole in the law.
With the current handling, it is quite obvious that the same individuals or parties will have the opportunity to behave in exactly the same way in the election next year as they were able to do last time.
I am very pleased that we have a consensus. I personally wrote a motion immediately after the last election which was handled in the Committee on the Constitution in 2023, which was then partially approved with the understanding that we need to do something about it. It was a unanimous Committee on the Constitution that stood behind it.
One should not give people the opportunity to be deceitful on more than one occasion. Now we are getting a situation where they can behave deceitfully on more than one occasion in the same way. Then it is not certain that loopholes will not be found in the next electoral law. It is this that I am a bit concerned about.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I noted that the Minister for Justice in his second contribution placed great emphasis on the announcement from the Riksdag in June this year, if I listened correctly to the first contribution and the interpellation answer.
I just want to point out once again that the Swedish Election Authority's experience report, which the Minister for Justice also refers to in his answer, was published in February 2023. There has nevertheless been a fairly long period during which the government could have taken the initiative to act on this issue, if it was indeed considered to be a problem.
It is not that the government had to wait for the Riksdag's announcement, but here one could have chosen to act earlier. Then perhaps this issue would have been handled by this point. It was done in the early 90s, as Member of Parliament Sandell has explained, when a similar problem was discovered in the electoral law.
What I was critical of when I referred to the long preparation processes once upon a time was that the government was somewhat selective regarding which processes can take a long time to prepare and which processes can be prepared very quickly when it comes to matters in the constitutional issues. Here, I think one is kicking the ball a bit further forward than one had needed to do. We could have solved this.
Given that there is consensus in the chamber and given that the Election Authority's experience report was issued in February 2023, there would have been plenty of time to resolve the issue and close this loophole before the 2026 election.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the constitutional prerequisites. There is a general principle that has been upheld for a long time here in the Riksdag, namely that decisive changes or changes at all, in that respect, to the electoral system shall not be made later than one year before an election. One can therefore say that the scope for action has, despite everything, been somewhat limited.
The second thing is that we handle issues concerning the core of our democracy, namely the free and general elections, in an orderly process between the parties in the Riksdag. I think that, overall, it is excellent that the Committee on the Constitution takes the initiative in the matter in close connection to the experience report because it creates a democratic legitimacy for the entire approach regarding the electoral system.
I also want to say, for the sake of clarity, that the announcement the member refers to has tasked the government with investigating the issue. It has not bound us to return with a proposal. However, I do not say this with the intention of implying that we should fundamentally conduct a different analysis of the problem than the analysis presented by the members.
As mentioned, reference was made to the 90s and Bertil Persson. I believe that this is a problem that all parties fundamentally see and want to do something about, and now there is a very good and legitimate democratic format to do so.
Now, as has been said, it is the Christmas season, so I am not going to go back and start calculating the speed and promptness of various processes that the Social Democrats may be responsible for historically. Just as it concerns the electoral system, I believe we have found a very appropriate way to handle the issue.
One might possibly ask how long this loophole has existed in the legislation. It has probably been there for quite a long time. If Bertil Persson was there poking around in related issues in the 90s, I do not know how many governments – if we are to distribute the burden of blame over time – are involved. Then we have Göran Persson for twelve years. After that, there is a short break, and then we have eight more years with S-rule.
Let us say this anyway: The gap has existed for some time. It would have been nice if it had been identified at an earlier stage and something could have been done about it. Now it is identified, and the question has been raised in a very appropriate way within the framework of the Committee on the Constitution in the Riksdag. We will take this further in an orderly manner in a process where all parties are involved and where I actually also assume that all parties will agree on the conclusion and how this shall be handled going forward.
In this very constructive tone, I would like to conclude this contribution.
Joakim Sandell (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister concluded with what is actually the point itself, namely that the vulnerability in the electoral law does not become apparent until someone abuses it. If no one has previously done so or behaved fraudulently in the way that Bertil Persson discovered in 1991, it will not become apparent.
Now, Bertil Persson was perhaps not directly alone in discovering this, but he raised it in a motion text. I can state that I have spoken with some old party comrades who were also really furious about this. It was reasonably possible according to the legislation that existed already in 1988 or 1985, but no one utilized this. People followed the practice that had previously existed.
It is somewhat the same thing with this. The shortcomings in our electoral law may not always be noticed here, because the parties sitting in Sweden's Riksdag are respected and still have the basic attitude that we should have free and general elections where everyone is exactly equally much worth. The voters shall be allowed to challenge our arguments linked to the state, the public and the private and to tax rates, crime policy and other things.
The whole point is that this behavior slightly violates the principle that we are equal. The reasonable thing is that one can stand for election in a municipal election and a regional election, because one can only be a representative in a municipality or in a region.
Thank you so very much for what I nevertheless consider to have been a constructive debate here during the Christmas season! I would, however, have wished that one were a bit faster.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! If I take the liberty of interpreting our latest exchange, my assessment is that the satisfaction from Sandell's side in relation to me has risen from 80 to 90 and perhaps 95 percent during the course of our exchange. It feels very good!
We agree that this is a problem, and we agree that we do not want different actors to be able to manipulate our electoral system. It naturally creates vulnerability in relation to political parties, and not least, it creates great vulnerabilities and great democratic problems in relation to the citizens and the voters.
There is a practical experience from the last election, which has been addressed from several different sides. The Committee on the Constitution has gathered together for what is in practice a mandate to the government. The government has delivered according to that mandate, and the issue is now being handled in a committee where all parties in the Riksdag are represented. I am convinced that this will be able to land in a way that is both good in substance and has high democratic legitimacy.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.