Lawyer Naraseth insists that the Election Commission's order to design and use the 2026 election ballot is unlawful, and he has requested a temporary injunction to suspend the official election result announcement, emphasizing that this aligns with the 2006 court ruling.
At 1:00 p.m. on 16 February 2026 GMT+7, Mr. Naraseth Nanongtum, a lawyer affiliated with the Center for Human Rights Lawyers, said at the Administrative Court on Chaeng Watthana Road about the reason for filing the lawsuit concerning the election ballot at the Central Administrative Court: The first issue concerns the election ballot. The Election Commission must issue an order to design, print, and use the ballot each time, exercising authority under the Election Commission regulations on the election of members of the House of Representatives, B.E. 2566 (2023). Such an order is an administrative act, not a constitutional act, and thus falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Court, following the precedent set by the 2006 Administrative Court rulings under red case numbers 607-608/2549 (2006).
"The Election Commission's order to design ballots containing barcodes or QR codes that can be traced back to the stub and the voter compromises ballot secrecy, violating the constitution and election laws. If the court rules that this order is unlawful, using such ballots in elections would also be illegal. The most serious consequence could be the court ordering a new election and prohibiting the use of ballots issued under the unlawful order that allow tracing back to voters. This ultimately depends on the Central Administrative Court's decision."
Mr. Naraseth added that the Central Administrative Court has the authority to investigate facts. It is expected the court will seek to determine which of the two ballot types can be traced back to the stubs. If further investigation is needed, they are prepared to provide witnesses, especially IT experts, to testify in court. If the court finds the submitted evidence sufficient, it may issue an order thereafter.
"The Central Administrative Court previously ruled in case numbers 607-608/2549 (2006) that if the voting can be easily predicted regarding whom a voter marked, the election is not secret. Similarly, the Constitutional Court ruling 9/2549 (2006) clearly states that even the possibility of knowing how someone voted violates ballot secrecy and the constitution's intent, rendering the election void. In summary, these two 2006 rulings establish that it is not necessary to prove that anyone actually knew how a person voted; if it is foreseeable that the vote could be known, the election is not secret and is therefore invalid."