The Central Administrative Court dismissed the case filed by a Thammasat University lecturer against the Election Commission (EC), who alleged that the EC's short three-day out-of-district referendum registration period and system failure caused loss of voting rights. The court noted that the EC acted in accordance with the law and offered three registration methods, but the plaintiff voluntarily stopped the out-of-district registration process.
On 3 Feb 2026 at 13:30 GMT+7, the Central Administrative Court ruled to dismiss the case filed by Ms. Usanee Pathapeesrikit Lertratananon, a lecturer from Thammasat University, who sued the Election Commission (EC) and its office for neglecting duties under the law by setting the out-of-district referendum registration period to only three days (3-5 Jan 2026). The system could not handle the large simultaneous registrations, and there was insufficient public notice. As a result, Ms. Usanee, who had successfully registered for advance voting but failed to register for out-of-district referendum voting, claimed she suffered harm and requested the court to order the EC to reopen out-of-district registration.
The court reasoned that under Section 41 of the Referendum Act B.E. 2564 (2021) and its amendments, along with EC regulations stipulating that the referendum voting date coincides with the general election of the new House of Representatives in 2025, and following the Cabinet's designation of 8 Feb 2026 as the referendum day as published in the Government Gazette on 2 Jan 2026, the EC was required to set 3-5 Jan 2026 as the registration period for out-of-district referendum voting requests, including internet submissions. Furthermore, Ms. Usanee acknowledged awareness of the EC's announcement outlining the three registration channels: 1) submitting to district or local registrars, 2) mailing, and 3) via the internet until midnight on 5 Jan 2026 (Thailand time). Records showed that Ms. Usanee last submitted her internet request on 5 Jan 2026 at 15:42, leaving over eight hours remaining for further attempts, which she did not pursue. Therefore, her claims that the limited registration period, timing after a long holiday, and insufficient publicity prevented her from registering were not accepted. The court concluded that the EC's actions were lawful.